Talk:Nightcrawler (film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'll take this; I'm a sucker for neo-noirs and crime thrillers and Nightcrawler happens to be one of my favorites. It appears well-sourced and detailed, so I will complete this review right away. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of nitpicks after a thorough reading:

I would drop the Cast section entirely and add the cast names in the Plot instead. We are not an indiscriminate provider of information; everything here should be encyclopaedic in nature. Providing cast names in the running prose of a plot summary not only gives context (actors and characters mentioned together aids understanding of who played what, versus cross referencing the prose with a later list), and also ensures that only names which are actually important enough to warrant mentioning are listed.
Since composer James Newton Howard is mentioned as one of the key crew members, could you provide context on his involvement in Nightcrawler? If there was one, maybe add it in the post-production/music section.
It'd be nice to add a photo of director Dan Gilroy in the Development section, and of key actors Gyllenhaal, Ahmed, and Russo in Pre-prod. Supply them with a good caption!
I'd replace "a hectic process" as it reads too unprofessionally.
Nightcrawler received highly positive reviews from critics, with many praising Gyllenhaal's performance and Gilroy's script. Source?
Convert the quotes by Ben Sachs and Richard Roeper into prose. Roeper's comment is unsourced, btw.
How about adding an Home Media section? See MOS:FILM#Home_media for more info.
Ref 55 is bare url, and 56 is dead.
Kindly double-check the prose if it observes proper logical quotation use.

Famous Hobo, I will give you a week to make the fixes, even though I hope such a long time will not be necessary. SLIGHTLY^mad 05:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slightlymad: Not gonna lie, in retrospect, I did nominate this article a bit too early. There are certain aspects of the article that I should have included already (like the home video version). However, I don't have class today, so I'll try and fix those issues, and possibly add more information to the article as a whole. Shouldn't take me more than a couple of hours. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Great! I would also like to add that AllMusic has a coverage of the film's soundtrack, something you would want to be covered in the article as well. Were you able to gather invaluable infos on Howard's scoring process of the film? Personally, that soundtrack is tight. :) SLIGHTLY^mad 16:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working on that right now. The New York Times has a nice piece on Howard's score, and a few of the interviews I used also have a bit of additional info. As a side note, I just found a great article talking about the marketing for this film, which included a weird LinkedIn profile for Lou Bloom, and a Craigslist ad of all things. I'll try to include that in the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I noticed one use of contraction in the Reception, which I already fixed. We must avoid such practice in encyclopedic writing as per MOS:N'T. SLIGHTLY^mad 05:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, added as much as a could to a music section. Turns out there was not as much information as I thought there was. There could be more information in the audio commentary, but I don't have that at my disposal right now. Also, thanks for picking up the slack with contractions and typos I leave behind. I've started editing in the morning while I'm at work, and I'm not a morning person, so I will usually make a decent amount of mistakes. I'm normally able to catch them before I save an edit, but every now and again I miss a mistake. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Music should just be its own section (placed below Production) and be renamed to "Soundtrack" since the track listings have yet to be added in the article. Just don't bother adding the album art in infobox, though, as MoS considers this extraneous. SLIGHTLY^mad 04:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to respectfully disagree with adding the soundtrack track listings. If the soundtrack received attention significant attention from reliable sources (like La La Land (film). I understand that it's a musical, but you get what I'm trying to say) then I would definitely include it. But the Nightcrawler soundtrack didn't get any attention at all, not even from blogs and other unreliable sources. No sources discuss the release date for the album, or that the album even exists, aside from AllMusic. The only reason AllMusic has the tracklisting is because they simply want to catalog the album. They had no further intentions of doing anything else with the album, such as review it. With that said, I believe I have taken care of all of the outstanding issues (or at least addressed them). Sorry it took so long, I really am procrastination incarnate. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·