Talk:Begin Again (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, 97198. I haven't reviewed one of your articles in quite awhile, and I see this one's been sitting around for a good bit, so why not kick off the new year with a review? I'll be focusing on grammar for this first bit, as I'm currently at work (on lunch break) and most sites are blocked. I'll finish the review tonight.

Good news is that this article barely needs any work before I'm willing to pass it, so after a source review and some small changes this should be good to go.

Criteria

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: See comments below the criteria list.

   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:

   Almost good here, but an IMDb source and three links to Gary's Loft are all sketchy. Granted, the information they source seems unnecessary, so perhaps removing this altogether would be the best option. Sock (tock talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. I actually removed it once before but evidently I didn't notice when the info was re-added.

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   "Filming" section is pretty thin, but this might just be do to a lack of info. Have you tried watching the film's special features? That could help with some expansion.

• Unfortunately I don't have the DVD – which apparently has a making-of feature – but if I end up buying it, I'll see what can be added.

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. 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:

Nitpicks

Lead

• Small gripe here: is it necessary to include "who had originally intended to give it the title, Can A Song Save Your Life?" in the lead? I know it screened under that title at festivals, but it's most common name is definitely Begin Again. Seems like solid information in prose, but the lead (bolded no less) is a bit too prominent in my opinion

• Done.

• Cast order in the lead is a bit wonky. Why Ruffalo and Levine instead of just Ruffalo? Steinfeld has higher billing than Levine does, so why are Corden, Green, and Keener excluded? I'd say either reduce it to Knightley and Ruffalo, or expand it to all seven.

• Cut to Knightley and Ruffalo.

• Why not specify the release date in the lead? "June of 2014" is unnecessarily vague. Also, why the specificity of the soundtrack coming out on the same day?

• Added the release date. I left in "in conjunction with the release of the film's soundtrack" simply so there is some mention of the soundtrack in the lead, since all other sections are summarised in the lead.

• Why only the overseas box office in the lead? The film made over $63 million worldwide, I'd specify that at least, maybe stating how much was made in North American and in other countries.

• Hmm, not sure how that came to be – I've changed it to the worldwide total gross.

Plot

• "(Keira Knightley, who does her own singing)" and "(Adam Levine of Maroon 5)" should go from the plot. I'd suggest removing all actor names from the plot, actually, seeing as there's so many of them. But definitely the singing bit.

• Agreed. All names are dropped from the plot since there's a cast list directly below.

• "After being fired from his job, he goes on a drinking binge which leads him to a bar in the Lower East Side where he encounters Gretta James (Keira Knightley, who does her own singing), a young and fiercely independent songwriter who has just broken up with her long-time boyfriend and songwriting partner Dave Kohl (Adam Levine of Maroon 5), a successful musician who had an affair with one of his producers." This is one sentence. It needs to be less than one sentence :P

• Ha! It appears I have a problem with lengthy sentences. Fixed.

• Troublegum's reference in the plot doesn't add much, and the Twitter namedrop is completely unnecessary.

• Reworded.

• "The next day, Saul fires Dan again and informs him that Gretta's album sold 10,000 copies in its first day of release." When did Dan get his job back? It says that Gretta lobbied for it, but it's never clear that he actually get re-hired. Also, why is he fired again? In short, it's confusing.

• I've reworded this part to (hopefully) clarify the sequence of events. Let me know if it's still unclear.

Development

• "thought up" isn't very encyclopedic. Maybe "conceived"?

• Done.

• "Once, released in 2007" can just be "Once (2007)".

• Done.

• Anthony Bregman doesn't need a redlink.

• Done.

Filming

• "...locals than tourists; specific locations" should be two sentences, not a semi-colon.

• Done. Again with the long sentences ;)

• "Rather than performing live during filming, the actors sang along to prerecorded tracks, and in order to save money on hiring a full crew and background actors some scenes, including one in Times Square, were shot late at night with a handheld camera." Comma usage is funky to say the least, and this sentence is pretty long. Maybe something like "Rather than performing live during filming, the actors sang to pre-recorded tracks. In order to save money on hiring a full crew and extras (comment: not sure why "extra" is piped with "background actors", so I unpiped it here), some scenes—including one in Times Square—were shot late at night with a handheld camera."

• Your suggestion is definitely better – changed.

Soundtrack

• "The track "Drowning Pool" over the opening credit sequence, performed by Irish band The Walls, was not included on the soundtrack album." needs some rewording. Perhaps "The track "Drowning Pool" by The Walls, which played over the opening credit sequence, is not included on the soundtrack album." I'm not certain that "is" is right here, but since the album exists, I feel like it is.

• As above, changed to your wording.

• Tracklisting doesn't need to repeat first names in the writer field every time.

• Done.

Box office

• Gross is inconsistent between the infobox and this section.

• Fixed.

Critical response (just renamed it)

• Ruffalo image overlaps and pushes the reflist over. I'd remove it.

• Image is gone.

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: I'll put this on hold for two weeks, since I know the holiday season can get pretty busy. This article is looking pretty good, Sophie (may I call you Sophie?)! Just a little more work and some small fixes and we'll be golden. Sock (tock talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, Sock (and you may definitely call me Sophie)! I've just returned from a week away and it appears that a few of my GANs that have been sitting for a while have all been reviewed around the same time (not that I'm complaining!), so I will try to get to this one later today or tomorrow. 97198 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@97198: Sure thing! Also, sources all check out with the exception of the two I mentioned above (Gary's Loft and IMDb). Sock (tock talk) 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: Alright, I think I've addressed everything. Specific replies to your comments are above. Thanks again (as always) for your thoroughness! 97198 (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@97198: One quick question: would you be able to get a copy of the film any time in the near future? If not, I can look into it to help expand the article. 10,000B of prose is a bit tiny for me to pass this with 100% confidence, ya know? I'm sorry I didn't really emphasize that earlier, I meant to. I just think that the coverage of this could definitely be fuller, and I'm happy to help with it. Sock (tock talk) 20:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sock: I'll try and rent a copy tomorrow – I'll let you know if it doesn't work out. 97198 (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you have this on watch, so I'll stop pinging you. I managed to secure a hold at my local library, so I can pick it up after work. No need to spend your money! I'll post the relevant information on the article's talk page when I watch the special features. Sock (tock talk) 13:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! 97198 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, turns out the copy was at another library and they had to ship it in. It only arrived yesterday, and I picked it up. So tonight, I'll be able to go through the info with you. I'll probably post what I find to be relevant on your talk page. Sock (tock talk) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the subsections in the production section, as its a thin enough section that's the division just emphasizes how small it is :P Also, I watched the film today (absolutely fantastic, I was not expecting to love it as much as I did), and the special features as well. It was pretty much all self-aggrandizing, unfortunately, so I think the production section we've got now will do just fine. I'm more than happy to pass this article. Great work as always! Sock (tock talk) 04:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sock! That's a shame about the DVD features, especially since you went to the effort of finding it, but at least you got to watch the film. Like you, I wasn't expecting much from the film when I first saw it but ended up completely charmed! 97198 (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)