Talk:The Rules of the Game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Rules of the Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article, thank you. Looks good at first glance.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • "1939 French film directed by Jean Renoir and starring Nora Gregor, Paulette Dubost, Mila Parély, Marcel Dalio, Julien Carette, Roland Toutain, Gaston Modot, Pierre Magnier and Renoir." — Too long a sentence. Maybe like this: "1939 French film directed by Jean Renoir. The film features an ensemble cast of Nora Gregor, Paulette Dubost, Mila Parély, Marcel Dalio, Julien Carette, Roland Toutain, Gaston Modot, Pierre Magnier and Renoir."
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good if you just wrote "See Cast" (like the Star Trek FAs) instead of mentioning all the names in the infobox there. Looks a bit bloated.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

  • Well-written. Within the 400-700 limit. Addresses the points about the film perfectly.

Cast[edit]

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

  • "He was also anxious about the Munich agreement and the strong possibility of another world war, and wanted to film a "happy dream."" — Kind of vague here. Is it that he wanted people to leave the theatres with a smile on their faces rather than worry about the then impending WWII?
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as the works of Marivaux, Beaumarchais and especially Musset's" — Even if wikilinked, their full names ought to be there for those who may not be familiar with them.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renoir re-wrote the character Christine for the Austrian actress and fell in love with her during pre-production." — Did he really fall in love with her or was it just based on the words of his colleagues?
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But the cast and crew admired Renoir and enjoyed the carefree atmosphere on set, forgetting about the impending political situation." — Starting with "But" looks a tad non-grammatical. Perhaps, "The cast and crew however admired Renoir and enjoyed the carefree atmosphere on set, forgetting about the impending political situation."?
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renoir arranged the blocking first then acted in the scenes" — What is "blocking"? Make it more clearer for those who may not be familiar with the term.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jay pushed Renoir to finish location filming in Sologne and move the production to the sets built for it at the Pathé studios in Joinville." — Something simpler like "Jay pushed Renoir to finish filming in Sologne and move the production to sets erected at the Pathé studios in Joinville."
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "B-roll footage" or add a sourced footnote explaining what it means if a wikilink is not available.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Film historian Gerald Mast said Gregor's performance was "as haunting and bewitching as a plastic giraffe."" — Can be rephrased as "Film historian Gerald Mast found Gregor's performance to be "as haunting and bewitching as a plastic giraffe.""
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall the film was nine and a half weeks over schedule when in finally wrapped in June" — Can be rephrased as "The principal photography was nine and a half weeks over schedule when it was finally wrapped in June."
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

  • "Renoir later said he thought the film would be marketable." — Do you mean to say that Renoir believe that he could find commercial success instead of critical acclaim?
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rediscovery[edit]

  • Couldn't find any fault here. Well-written.

Themes[edit]

  • "The Rules of the Game is remembered as a commentary on the moral callousness of the European upper class and their servants just before the beginning of World War II." — Is it present in reference #43? If not, do mention a reference/source for it.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard Roud's quote can be explained rather than putting it as a big quote. Bergan's quote about the animals can be explained a bit as well.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

  • "David Thomson said" — Mention who he is and on what topic/subject he is saying before stating "David Thomson said". :-)
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

  • David Thomson, Gerald Mast and Francois Truffaut are wikilinked again. Do remove the links (per WP:OVERLINK).
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Robert Altman.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has a lot of "XX said XX" and "XX called the film XX". Try to make it more different for some of them who commented on the film more.
Worked on this. Maybe not exactly what you had in mind but I think its improved. Let me know what you think.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot better.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the access date for #1, #65, #117.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the date for #64.
Issue- so the date listed on the webpage in December 31, 1938. Which is almost a year before the film was released. Now it does appear to be the review from its initial release and "December 31, 1939" may be accurate. I'd be more comfortable just putting "1939".--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the publication and access dates for #137.
Done. Cutting this out. I added the original Francis Vanoye source which includes all the films listed in the sentence. Someone else added on this source.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I was wrong and I fixed it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Film Institute can be linked just once. That should suffice.
Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deoliveirafan: Overall, the article looks quite well-written. It was a pleasure to read it.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ssven2:I have fixed or worked on everything on your list. I am not the greatest at rules, but books definitely do not need an access date right? I would be happy to work with you on any more improvements.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deoliveirafan: Books don't but online references do.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing - "The film had an elaborate advertising campaign that began one week before its release in anticipation of it becoming another hit film for Renoir. This campaign included a promotional crossword puzzle published three days before the film's opening night; the prize for solving the puzzle was free tickets." — This is unsourced.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was split into two paragraphs at some point, but it is the same source as the next paragraph.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
    Pass or Fail:

@Deoliveirafan: Congratulations! Renoir's masterpiece has passed.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep focus and moving long shots as “sophisticated” techniques in 1939[edit]

Anyone who has been following the recent rediscovery of the restored riches of the silent film era is likely to do a double-take at this statement and wish for a description beyond “sophisticated,” a subjective term that may suggest “unprecedented.” There is no citation, so there is no article to provide in-depth explanation. As we now know, film makers of the sound era reinvented many tools and techniques of the art that silent era film makers had already used. In fact, some film makers of the sound era have been credited with being the “first”—always a dangerous term—when they were not. One example is the crab dolly, whose invention was long credited to Vincente Minnelli. In fact, James Wong Howe created and used a crab dolly (perhaps it could be described as “the first known crab dolly.”) as early as 1927.

So I would suggest a little more on this subjective term, or at least a usable citation.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rules_of_the_Game&oldid=1193712863"