Talk:Evita (1996 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. My comments should be up within a week or two. Ping me afterwards if they aren't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Snuggums, for taking on the article. FrankRizzo (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Will post when I've looked through it all. This might take some time, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggy you gonna give a good review for this I'm sure, although FrankRizzo has done an amazing job I must say :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to take longer than I thought, but here are some initial comments.....

Infobox[edit]

Why is Dirty Hands Productions only mentioned here but nowhere in the lead or production sections?
I'd stick with the $55 million budget figure from Box Office Mojo, which is known to have good tracking of money for films.

Lead[edit]

See above note on Dirty Hands Productions
"Film rights" is a commonly recognized term that probably doesn't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
Everything after "lyrics" in "creating the music first and then the lyrics; they also wrote a new song" should be in a new sentence
"concluded in May of that year; filming took place"..... also not an ideal use of semi-colon when it's better to make a new sentence starting with "filming"
The December 14th premiere mentioned in infobox is worth including here when it was the first known release of any form
"expanding distribution in the following weeks; the film"..... again, new sentence would be better than semicolon after "weeks"
"Evita received mixed reviews from mainstream film critics, but was a commercial success"..... money earned has nothing to do with how much people enjoyed a film, so it's better to say something like "While Evita received mixed reviews from mainstream film critics, it was a commercial success"
Include the budget here

Plot[edit]

Is "humble" an appropriate word choice? I could be wrong, but something tells me others might not like the tone it carries.
"a small, meager gift; and the French, while kind to her, are upset" → "a small, meager gift. While the French are kind to her, they are upset"
"distributes aid; the film suggests"..... the bit after "aid" should be a separate sentence
"because she is too weak"..... "due to her declining health" would be better

Cast[edit]

Everyone except for Billie Piper is unsourced in this section. Unlike the plot section guidelines, WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide any exemptions from sources within these sections. Even the reference given doesn't say what Piper's role was. I'm also not sure how credible the source used is. If you don't feel like adding individual citations for each cast member, then I'd recommend having a singular source containing all cast members and having "Credits adapted from _______" right before the citation.

Production[edit]

Failed projects: 1976–1986[edit]

This says 2,913 performances for the original production, not 3,176. It also doesn't mention Bugsy Malone, which I'm not sure is worth mentioning anyway.
I don't think it's necessary to state that Fame was Parker's third feature film
"a subsidiary of the EMI conglomerate, with which he had a record production deal" seems like rather much; just focus on how he sold the rights to EMI Films
"briefly discussed the project"..... I think also is better in this instance; duration isn't the focus
"Michael Cimino had been reportedly approached by EMI to direct the film, though Stigwood denied such rumors" isn't exactly what the given source says, and I don't see any need for rumors in the first place

More to come. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the abovementioned concerns mentioned have been adressed in previous edits. FrankRizzo (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. Continuing.....

"We had a wonderful working relationship during Tommy. I was sure Evita was in the proper hands." actually isn't quite a cohesive quote in the given source, although the words used are faithful to it.
"a blonde wig and custom-period gowns; he felt that" should be split into separate sentences after "gowns"
"perfect" in "would be perfect for the role" seems like a stretch; let's go with "more ideal" or "better suited"
"Russell was an insane choice and would have wrecked the film if he had gotten his hands on it. I was relieved when he got the boot."..... the wording is accurate, but this form also implies that it was all one cohesive quote when in fact it wasn't. Let's not mislead viewers.
"film" from "He didn't feel he could translate it to film" should be "films" if using exact quote.
"dressed in an elaborate gown and a 1940s-style hairdo to show her interest in playing Eva"..... at no point do I find anything in the given link that even suggests she was dressed up like that, though it is mentioned here.
"stating that she was 'perfect to play' the part"..... the actual quote used is "'She was perfect' to play Evita, he says", so if using a quote, then I'd go with "stating that 'she was perfect' to play the part", "stating that she 'was perfect' to play the part", or "stating that she was 'perfect' to play the part".

I'll probably do this section-by-section (at least for now). Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the concerns have addressed in previous edits to the article. I'll continue to make edits to the article as I await the remainder of your GA review. FrankRizzo (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Stone: 1987–1994[edit]

"produce films in the $12–16 million range"..... 15 million, not 16
"balked at the prospects of"..... reads awkwardly, try "decided against"

Development[edit]

"My intention was to write a balanced story, as thoroughly researched as possible, inspired always by the heart of the original piece, which was [Lloyd Webber]'s score and [Rice]'s lyrics. I ignored the stage play completely, as the theatrical decisions that Hal Prince made bore little relevance to a cinematic interpretation."..... in this case, I think it's actually fine to use first names that the quote contains

I'll have more in the future. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting the remainder of your review, Snuggums. FrankRizzo (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten this, but lately have been sidetracked and held up. Sorry about that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could be missing something, but don't see any mention of changes to the last act within Parker's website or Rice and Lloyd Webber not working together since Cricket (though don't think the Cricket piece is needed anyway)
"He said, '[Morris] ... photographed every square inch'" → "He said Morris 'photographed every square inch'"

Casting[edit]

Not seeing anything in Manila Standard on Dangerous Times, and don't think that would be needed regardless
"Lloyd Webber however" → "However, Lloyd Webber"
I will assume good faith with the material cited to sources that require subscriptions or are offline
"Banderas said of the character" → "Banderas said", and the quote is actually interspersed rather than cohesive here
I don't see anything in Parker's site suggesting Pryce was his "only choice" for playing Juan Perón

Section complete! To be continued. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest comments have been addressed. Of the changes made:

- I have since rewritten the cast of Pryce: "For the role of Juan Perón, Parker only approached film and stage actor Jonathan Pryce."
- Rice and Lloyd Webber not working together since Cricket has been changed to "Rice and Lloyd Webber had not worked together for many years..."

FrankRizzo (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filming[edit]

Principal photography[edit]

I feel the boxed quote would be better for "development" which talks about the script and directors
There's nothing mentioning journalists in the source about the conference. If that number of journalists did in fact attend, then please use a different source.
"The Richest" is a dubious source, so find something better to cite Guinness World Records

More later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made, as per your suggestions. FrankRizzo (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"several days before"..... unless I'm missing something, "several" isn't supported in the given ref; it says "just days", so maybe go with "shortly before"

Cinematography[edit]

"Additionally, he used Arriflex's VariCon" → "He also used Arriflex's VariCon"

That's another section finished. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Edits made as per your comments. FrankRizzo (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music and soundtrack[edit]

"Recording the songs was a slow process and took almost four months to complete" → "It took almost four months to record all of the songs"
Unless I'm missing something this doesn't contain any "Black Monday" or "being filled with trepidation and nerves", though does include "we were very apprehensive"
"music producer" is a pretty commonly recognized term and doesn't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
"The soundtrack for Evita was released by Warner Bros. Records in two different versions"..... it's better to use the active voice than passive voice, so try "Warner Bros. Records released two different versions of the film's soundtrack", but the bigger problem is that the source used doesn't mention such detail. Please resource or remove.
I would include the soundtrack's release date
"Critical reception towards the soundtrack was mixed" is a violation of WP:SYNTH when there's no ref supporting this; you can't just take two different reviews and form a conclusion like that
We don't need to go into very much detail on chart performance; just the highest charting nations are enough, and others are better for the soundtrack's main article
I would include total sales for the soundtrack

Section complete! Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made, as per your comments. I did find the quotes from the abovementioned article. Note that one paragraph of the article reads that Parker "recalls the first days of recording last October as being filled with trepidation and nerves". In the following paragraph, Parker states, "All of us came from very different worlds--from popular music, from movies, and from musical theatres--and so we were all very apprehensive." The "Black Monday" references can actually be found on Parker's essay from his official website.FrankRizzo (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better, but I actually meant worldwide total sales. The reviews also were fine to include, but just couldn't be used on their own to state how much people liked it. Additionally, Discogs (one of the refs inserted) isn't reliable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made. FrankRizzo (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception (has been changed)[edit]

I don't see the need to have these be in the same section; let's have them separate with premieres, home media, and box office in "release", reviews and accolades in "reception" Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.FrankRizzo (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

"The" is part of the title for The San Francisco Examiner
This doesn't give a specific date, and "Saturday" could refer to multiple days in the month, so it's better to give something more specifically indicating December 14th like Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo, Billboard, or Tim Rice's website
It isn't appropriate to give "platform release" quotation marks when it isn't a quote from either of the given citations
The fact that Alan Parker wrote The Making of Evita is more important than the company who published the book
Detail on this being Robert Stigwood's last feature film production is better for his article

More to come later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FrankRizzo (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box office[edit]

Per WP:Manual of Style/Film#Box office, let's replace "domestic" with something more specific like "United States" or "North American" as this is a US film
The film reached number four in its fifth weekend of wide release, not sixth.
"By its sixth weekend, the film went from sixth place to seventh, earning $3,001,066" is inaccurate; this was actually fourth to sixth place
Can you find any detail about its openings outside of the US and Canada?

Home media[edit]

The Blu-ray was released June 19, 2012, not May 22.
Any detail on video, DVD, or Blu-Ray sales?

Pretty good section overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Critical response[edit]

It seems like this section is organized by praise first and then criticisms, but it would help to specifically indicate ratings and overall positive/negative responses where appropriate
"Malcolm Johnson, in his review for the Hartford Courant, wrote" seems rather wordy; try Johnson of or from the Hartford Courant, maybe even something like "Writing for Hartford Courant, Malcolm Johnson stated"
No need for the ellipsis when quoting Ebert or Corliss since no text comes in the quote before what you have included
I would remove "was among those who" from "Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly was among those who criticized Parker's direction", and add something like "stating" or "writing" at the end of this bit

Accolades[edit]

I know this has its own main article, but the Satellite Awards it won are worth mentioning, and it might also be worth including BAFTA noms (which are the UK equivalent of Oscars).

Not many issues with this section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The following publications shouldn't be italicized:

"InternetBroadwayDatabase.com" should read Internet Broadway Database
"Daily News. New York" should read New York Daily News

Some changes need to be made, but no major concerns

Footnotes[edit]

Not sure why these are separate from the citations; probably better to have them all in a collective "references" section with subsections to distinguish each

No formatting issues here

Overall[edit]

This needs some improvements, but is definitely looking much better than when I first started reviewing it. Neutrality and Stability are perfectly fine. Looking through the images, I'm a bit worried about File:Tim Rice - 1981.jpg due to an ongoing copyright investigation, so let's try to find something else if possible or remove otherwise. Prose, citation formatting, and breadth still need work as outlined above. On hold for seven days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the time to read your previous comments, and address your concerns in previous edits. To answer some of your questions, Snuggums, I could not find anything about the film's performance overseas, nor could I find anything regarding the home video sales.FrankRizzo (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've made some minor adjustments myself, and this is now good to go! Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Snuggums, for reviewing the article, and to other contributors for helping me get the article to GA status.FrankRizzo (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pyongyang International Film Festival[edit]

This film was selected in the Pyongyang International Film Festival and became the first (and only) American film in the festival's history. I think that is important to include that (ref). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to include within "release" section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Was already added after by FrankRizzo2006. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 08:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]