Jump to content

Talk:Brainstorm (2000 film)

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

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

[edit]

I've found a commentary on the film by the newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung: http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/article7KAAY-1.462597. However, it's in German and I don't know how to translate it. Someone could help me? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit

[edit]

Hello! I have finished copy-editing the article as requested on the GOCE page. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns! Thanks, kara❈talk 21:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Satkara, thanks. I'd only ask you to check if I clarified the sentences you've requested. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've clarified everything well, and that it is about ready for a GA nomination. There is still a citation needed tag on the seven-headed beast explanation (I assume you can cite a definition that is related to the phrase, but not the film itself). I'd also suggest that you change "It was subsequently acclaimed, receiving several..." to "it subsequently received several...", because the article suggest that it was not acclaimed overall, just primarily by domestic critics. kara❈talk 22:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brainstorm (2000 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should complete this one soon ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:33, 22 February 2015 (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:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

[edit]
  • "The film tells the story of Neto (Santoro)" - no need to mention who plays the character(s) in the lead
  • "Bodanzky chose to make it a documentary-like film" - bit informal. How about "documentary style" or something similar?
  • "After being rewritten five times, the script was shot in early 2000" - the 'script' was shot?
  • The lead summarises the article well, ableit some parts could be reworded, but this part meets the GA criteria
  • "The films ends with Neto and his father seated side by side curbside. Wilson cries" - those two short sentences are very choppy! The part with Wilson crying could be merged with this sentence, with something like by the side curbside, with Wilson crying?
  • 'Nurse' should be capitalised in the Cast section
  • "The film paved the way for new thinking about psychiatric institutions in Brazil which led to a law approved by Congress that forbid such institutions" - this standalone sentence should either be expanded or merged in one of the sub sections here

References

[edit]
  • No dead links, but according to the toolserver there one ref is missing an access date

On hold

[edit]

Looks like a solid article. I could only spot some choppy sentences but other than the all sections comply per the criteria and the references are also formatted. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've (hopelly) fixed all issues. The ref withouth an accessdate is the book on Bibliography. As a book, I don't think it needs an accessdate. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your fast response! Ah sorry I didn't notice it was part of the Bibliography, but nevertheless everything else checks out. We're good to promote this ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brainstorm (2000 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brainstorm_(2000_film)&oldid=1206413615"