Talk:Knives Out/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: DAP389 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 21:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

I realised I should probably say something before I dive right into all the bullet points! Overall this looks like a very thorough and polished article that I expect will very soon make for an excellent Good Article. I typically prefer to make very minor prose edits and simple fixes myself, rather than bother you with the rigamarole of writing a whole bullet point to the effect of "in such-and-such paragraph, the year should be 2019 instead of 2018", so you'll likely see me puttering on the article a bit as I work my way through the review. Naturally, feel free to continue editing yourself, and to discuss any of the suggestions I make below, at any point in the review. I look forward to working together!

General suggestions

• Since the article has a section on themes it would be nice to reflect that in the lead with a single sentence, to the tune of "Knives Out has been read as work that investigates class warfare, wealth inequality, immigration, and race in contemporary American society."

Revised.

• In "Filming," it opens with Bergman was already conducting the location scouting while Rian prepared the script. -- this would be clearer if it mentioned a date to ground it in time (e.g., in 2018...?) but also, the cited source doesn't say anything that about location scouting so I tagged this as "failed verification."

Idk how I missed this. Revised still though because The Hollywood Reporter source says Bergman was assembling the filmmaking crew while Johnson was making changes in the script, not scouting.

• In "Development", my source spot-check turned up a problem with this sentence: One report circulated by Deadline claimed that Creative Artists Agency and FilmNation hosted an auction of the script at the 43rd Toronto International Film Festival to various investors, including MRC, which it secured by outbidding all offers with a hefty proposal. The cited Deadline report says that the film's distribution was made available to bids from distributors in various countries, and makes no mention whatosever of MRC. If Johnson has felt the need to dispute this account, I'm sure there's somebody out there who claimed there was an auction, but this section needs to be revisited for accuracy.

I replaced that source with another Deadline report used in this article. Let me know what you think.

Great, this is much better, thanks -- definitely supports what is in the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Another verifiability problem is in "Box Office," the claim By January 2020, the film's domestic gross topped $130 million. The cited source is from February 2020 and simply doesn't say that.

Revised.

Prose edits

• A quibble on prose in the lead: the words "dubious", "gleaned," and "transpired" all sound a little "off"; they don't quite mean what they're being used to mean. I'd suggest rephrasing with clarity and simplicity in mind.

Rephrased.

• In the plot summary, I am confused by the phrase She confesses to Blanc, though Ransom has already implicated her. I can't remember if Marta is aware that Ransom has implicated her or not, e.g., does she think she's deciding or is she just giving up? This sentence suggest the second, but the next sentence really emphasizes the "decided to". Something shorter and simpler might be clearer here.

The latter. Rephrased.

• In "Development," I made a small edit myself to try to clarify the mention of Hitchcock's advice, but really I think a lot of this discussion of plot structure belongs in its own section. I'd move the whole paragraph that currently begins The first shift arranges the plot as a thriller... to a new section, called something like "Mystery genre" in the "Themes" section. (Also, the explanation jumps right from the "first" shift to the "final" shift but should there be more shifts in there?) For a GA, I think that one paragraph is enough for a "mystery genre" section, though I'm sure there's lots out there if you wanted to keep expanding with FAC in mind.

Moved and made additional copy edits for clarity. Let me know if you have additional feedback.

It looks good, thanks! The revisions help a lot with understanding the shifts. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• In "Cinematography" section, it says Rian approached the filming with a double-camera setup, appointing two operators to complete the task. While the camera interactions in this setup were known to yield frustrating results on other shoots, the setup proved reliable for the producers because they had the freedom to experiment with their filmmaking methods. To be very nitpicky: per the source, Johnson didn't appoint the operators, the DP did, and the film producers had nothing to do with any of it. The source itself quotes the DP as saying "On some projects, the interaction between A- and B-cameras can be a frustration," he says. "But, with Rian's approach, it's nothing but a joy. We found some really cool shots, and did fun stuff". That's a comment on interpersonal relationships: sometimes it's annoying to manage multiple operators, but Johnson is fun to work for. No mention of reliable results for the producers. I'd suggest stripping this way down to something like "Filming used a double-camera setup, with two operators, one a longstanding collaborator of Yevin's. Yevin described the environment on set as experimental and visually creative." (Or something along those lines!)

Done.

@LEvalyn:; Should be good so far. Please let me know what you think! DAP 💅 14:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Great improvements. I've had a chance now to do the copyvio review (no issues) and finish my prose read-through. Based on that read-through I just have a few more notes:

• In "Class Warfare" I'm getting a little lost in the sentence Much emphasis is placed on the alternating points of view of Marta's ordeal to reinforce antagonism, a device that Fast Company's Joe Berkowitz argues forms the film's class consciousness.. Maybe split into two, use the first sentence to explain the thing the film does and the second sentence is "Joe Berkowitz argues that this device forms..." ?

Done.

• No action item here, but I want to say that I'm impressed with how effectively the 'themes' section summarizes relevant interpretations of the film. It's nice to see the meaty, scholarly stuff so well represented!

Thank you!

• The accolade for the Writers Guild of America's "101 Greatest Screenplays of the 21st Century (So Far)" fees weirdly out of place as a single-sentence paragraph. I don't see a better place for this sentence to go... what do you think about cutting this detail? Is this an important accolade? Could it be folded into the "Reception" section somewhere?

Reception section is fine by me. Revised.

If you can take a look at those last two sentences, that will conclude my prose review and this article will be ready to go! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, should be be rectified now. Appreciate the review! DAP 💅 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I took a look and it's looking great! Excellent work, and I am happy to promote this article to GA status! If you like, you can nominate your new GA for WP:DYK -- you probably have some great options for the "hook". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.