Jump to content

Talk:Fanny and Alexander/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) 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
General
  • Some cases, you have written "Bergman", and at other times, "Ingmar" (for example:"Ingmar's relationship with his sister Margareta during their shared childhood is depicted through the character Fanny, who is included in the title though she is not as large a character as Alexander. Bergman had previously modeled characters after his mother, Karin Åkerblom, as simultaneously "virgin and seductress": Emilie also fits that self-contradictory design."). Be consistent with this (If the names of wither "Ingmar" or "Bergman" or both together show up in quotes as quoted by someone, then leave it as it is).
Section-wise
  • "who becomes abusive towards Alexander for his vivid imagination." — Alexander isn't mentioned before this. Do clarify in the lead by saying it as "who becomes abusive towards one of the siblings, Alexander, for his vivid imagination."
  • "The documentary film The Making of Fanny and Alexander was made simultaneously with the feature and documents its production." — Write a synonymous word for "documents" to avoid repetition of "document".
  • "Alexander had fantasized about his stepfather's death while living with Isak. Isak's mysterious nephew," — "Isak" right after one another. Rephrase the sentence. Maybe like "Alexander had fantasized about his stepfather's death while living with Isak. Ismael Retzinsky, Isak's mysterious nephew,, explains that fantasy can become true as he dreams it."
  • "On the first day of photography, Bergman decided to stage a pillow fight, which Wallgren credited for putting her at ease." — Was she nervous on the first day? She would've been. A bit more clarity would be required in mentioning that.
Source review
  • Ref no. 102 — Is JP's Box office a reliable source? Can you find a better alternative?
  • Add the "subscription required" tag for References 145, 147 and 148.
  • Change the ISBN in Bibliography to ISBN-13 (all of them) like how you have done in this article for one of the books
    • Don't understand this one. The template does not recognize "ISBN-13" ("Unknown parameter") Ribbet32 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at the tool you left on my user talk. It looks like it's from some US site rather than ISBN's international official website, and when I tried one it converted an ISBN into a random string of numbers that could no longer bring up the correct edition of the book. Since the ISBNs are correctly copied from the actual book sources, I don't see this as a required "fix". Ribbet32 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Haenni, Sabine; Barrow, Sarah; White, John, eds. (2014). The Routledge Encyclopedia of Films (Revised ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-68261-5"
  • Page numbers missing for Reference nos 83, 100 and 116.
That's about it from me, Ribbet32. Good job expanding the article on such a significant landmark film in Bergman's career. Address these comments and the article will be promoted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:28, 9 January 2018 (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: Thank you for addressing my comments, and congratulations. Another Bergman film promoted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]