Jump to content

Talk:Cries and Whispers/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Wikilink "pudenda".
  • "Bergman and Ullmann were in a romantic relationship, and their daughter Linn Ullmann appears as Maria's daughter and Anna's daughter in the photograph" — Do you mean she appear as both those daughters? specify clearly if so.
  • No need to wikilink Linn Ullmann twice (Remove the link in the footnotes as you have already linked her in the "Casting" section).
  • "Academic Laura Hubner agreed with Varda Burstyn's view that Cries and Whispers depicts the suppression of women," — Burstyn is only mentioned once here. Where did Burstyn express his views? Do mention it in the article before stating about Hubner's opinions.
  • "with Anna's dead daughter apparently audible at one point" — when?
  • Try to add separate headings for the "Critical reception" section in terms of adding sub-headings like "Contemporary reviews" and "Reflective reviews".
    • Would just wind up with one-para sections and unwieldy TOC Ribbet32 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot believe I'm seeing this. It is bad enough to see editors erroneously using the phrase "Reflective reviews" instead of "Retrospective reviews", but it is appalling to see a GA Reviewer recommending an editor deliberately make such a mistake. This is why using simple English over latin terms is preferable whenever possible. -- 109.76.202.17 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the years in which the films were made after each of the films you've mentioned (example: Persona (1966), Through a Glass Darkly (1961), Autumn Sonata (1978) etc).
  • Try to find the dates (date, month and year) of each of the award ceremonies (for consistency).
Source review

That's about it from me. Really good work on one of Bergman's most accomplished and deeply explored films, thematically speaking.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:10, 24 December 2017 (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:

@Ribbet32: A few more minor issues were there, but I've fixed it myself. Congratulations. Another Bergman film article has become a GA.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]