s |
TompaDompa (talk | contribs) →Comments by TompaDompa: Update. Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
*::I have given a number of examples below (e.g. the thing about chasing superlatives), and they are non-exhaustive. This article looks like a labour of love, which is to say that it reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::I have given a number of examples below (e.g. the thing about chasing superlatives), and they are non-exhaustive. This article looks like a labour of love, which is to say that it reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::To be clear, that is not the case, my project is taking important films from each year and elevating them. I haven't seen Se7en or Saving Private Ryan for probably 20 years before writing their articles, where my favorite film of 1995 and 1997, respectively, would be Die Hard With a Vengeance and There's Something About Mary/Blade. If I were doing films in a series I liked the most I'd have done John Wick 2. Superlatives are exaggerated statements and you mainly seemed to mention the "best action" and the like, and I've sourced these amply, they're not exaggerated descriptors.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::To be clear, that is not the case, my project is taking important films from each year and elevating them. I haven't seen Se7en or Saving Private Ryan for probably 20 years before writing their articles, where my favorite film of 1995 and 1997, respectively, would be Die Hard With a Vengeance and There's Something About Mary/Blade. If I were doing films in a series I liked the most I'd have done John Wick 2. Superlatives are exaggerated statements and you mainly seemed to mention the "best action" and the like, and I've sourced these amply, they're not exaggerated descriptors.[[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::Not necessarily referring to you; I don't know which parts of the article were written by which editor. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm not terribly impressed by the images. Seven out of ten are just headshots of people, with the other three being the poster, the [[Beaver Building]], and an additional photograph of Reeves where he poses for the camera. |
*I'm not terribly impressed by the images. Seven out of ten are just headshots of people, with the other three being the poster, the [[Beaver Building]], and an additional photograph of Reeves where he poses for the camera. |
||
*:I'm not sure what you're asking here? It's pictures of people in the film, a picture of the most important building in the film, and a picture of Reeves at a screening of the film. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:I'm not sure what you're asking here? It's pictures of people in the film, a picture of the most important building in the film, and a picture of Reeves at a screening of the film. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 110: | Line 111: | ||
*::I don't disagree in principle that some things need to be given as verbatim quotes, but we don't seem to agree about the number of instances where that's necessary. I don't think that format is needed for either of the two quotes with profanity, for instance. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::I don't disagree in principle that some things need to be given as verbatim quotes, but we don't seem to agree about the number of instances where that's necessary. I don't think that format is needed for either of the two quotes with profanity, for instance. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::Is it the profanity that is the issue? I've removed the one by Iwanyk but I think the other one is too good to get rid of in context [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Is it the profanity that is the issue? I've removed the one by Iwanyk but I think the other one is too good to get rid of in context [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::No, the profanity just made them stand out to me—profanity in quotes appears sparingly on Wikipedia, after all. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*This is a fairly lengthy article at more than 8,000 words. It need not be as lengthy as it is. Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words. |
*This is a fairly lengthy article at more than 8,000 words. It need not be as lengthy as it is. Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words. |
||
*:It's in no way lengthy, it's one of my shorter articles, see [[WP:SIZE]]. It's already been copy edited, removing 1000 words from it would make it a crappy article, that's a lot of content. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:It's in no way lengthy, it's one of my shorter articles, see [[WP:SIZE]]. It's already been copy edited, removing 1000 words from it would make it a crappy article, that's a lot of content. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 117: | Line 119: | ||
;Lead |
;Lead |
||
*'''New comment''': With [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Undue weight in opening sentences|this discussion]] in mind, I have to ask whether Stahelski and Kolstad belong in the first sentence over Reeves. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*<s>'''New comment''': With [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Undue weight in opening sentences|this discussion]] in mind, I have to ask whether Stahelski and Kolstad belong in the first sentence over Reeves.</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
* |
*:That discussion isn't over but in this case I would argue that all four people (Leitch, Kolstad, Reeves, and Stahelski) are fundamental to its success, it's Kolstad's script which is considered original, it's Leitch and Stahelski's experience as stunt coordinators that let them direct the action in a way that popularized the longer complex takes over the constant quick cuts of confusing close ups, another reason the film stood out, and the analysis near the bottom identifies Reeves public persona as fundamental to the title character. I think Reeves introduction works well in the article where it is as he is introduced very early but it's integrated well with the plot summary. Leitch obviously isn't present as he isn't credited as a director. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::Alright. I think it might be better to have the first sentence be plain "'''''John Wick''''' is a 2014 American [[action thriller film]]." and relegate everything else to subsequent sentences, but I suppose this works too. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>"[[Michael Nyqvist]], [[Alfie Allen]], [[Adrianne Palicki]], [[Bridget Moynahan]], [[Dean Winters]], [[Ian McShane]], [[John Leguizamo]], and [[Willem Dafoe]] appear in supporting roles." – seems a bit odd to me to describe Nyqvist and Allen as appearing in supporting roles.</s> |
*<s>"[[Michael Nyqvist]], [[Alfie Allen]], [[Adrianne Palicki]], [[Bridget Moynahan]], [[Dean Winters]], [[Ian McShane]], [[John Leguizamo]], and [[Willem Dafoe]] appear in supporting roles." – seems a bit odd to me to describe Nyqvist and Allen as appearing in supporting roles.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 127: | Line 130: | ||
*::It remains in the body. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::It remains in the body. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::Done [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Done [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::There's still "The digital release had earned about $20 million by May 2015". [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*"Retrospectively, ''John Wick'' is considered one of the greatest action films ever made" – this is a very strong statement to make about a film released not even a decade ago. The sourcing in the body (see below) does not remotely justify this. |
*"Retrospectively, ''John Wick'' is considered one of the greatest action films ever made" – this is a very strong statement to make about a film released not even a decade ago. The sourcing in the body (see below) does not remotely justify this. |
||
:The existing sourcing did back this up, I've added substantial additional referencing. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:The existing sourcing did back this up, I've added substantial additional referencing. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 137: | Line 141: | ||
*<s>"During the early 2000s, [[Derek Kolstad]] struggled to gain recognition as a screenwriter, despite being related to successful author [[Lori Wick]]." – this observation seems rather strange to me. I wouldn't necessarily expect a relative (neither biography specifies their exact relationship) of a successful author to ''ipso facto'' make it as a screenwriter, and Lori Wick is not exactly a household name.</s> |
*<s>"During the early 2000s, [[Derek Kolstad]] struggled to gain recognition as a screenwriter, despite being related to successful author [[Lori Wick]]." – this observation seems rather strange to me. I wouldn't necessarily expect a relative (neither biography specifies their exact relationship) of a successful author to ''ipso facto'' make it as a screenwriter, and Lori Wick is not exactly a household name.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*The first paragraph consists mostly of fairly tangential details that would seem a better fit in the [[Derek Kolstad]] article. |
*<s>The first paragraph consists mostly of fairly tangential details that would seem a better fit in the [[Derek Kolstad]] article.</s> |
||
*:Not really, it's setting up where he was as a writer and that John Wick was his first progression and success. If it was a regular occurrence for him the film would be less of an achievement. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:Not really, it's setting up where he was as a writer and that John Wick was his first progression and success. If it was a regular occurrence for him the film would be less of an achievement. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::I can see what you're going for, but things like moving to Los Angeles before almost immediately moving away again are just extraneous levels of detail for this article, "With encouragement from his wife Sonja" reads like something from an outlet that is trying to elicit an emotional response (e.g. a [[human-interest story]]) in this context, and starting in the early 2000s and outlining the number of screenplays per year before going into how many screenplays he wrote in total before one was picked up just makes the paragraph needlessly lengthy. Simply stating when he started writing and how many screenplays he wrote before one was picked up gives the reader all the context they need for this film. One or two concise sentences would do the trick, and it might not even need to be a stand-alone paragraph. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::I can see what you're going for, but things like moving to Los Angeles before almost immediately moving away again are just extraneous levels of detail for this article, "With encouragement from his wife Sonja" reads like something from an outlet that is trying to elicit an emotional response (e.g. a [[human-interest story]]) in this context, and starting in the early 2000s and outlining the number of screenplays per year before going into how many screenplays he wrote in total before one was picked up just makes the paragraph needlessly lengthy. Simply stating when he started writing and how many screenplays he wrote before one was picked up gives the reader all the context they need for this film. One or two concise sentences would do the trick, and it might not even need to be a stand-alone paragraph. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::So the reason his wife is mentioned is because he was ready to give up. I think it's unfair to dismiss her contribution, however seemingly minor, since if he gives up there is no John Wick franchise. I've reworded it a bit though. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::So the reason his wife is mentioned is because he was ready to give up. I think it's unfair to dismiss her contribution, however seemingly minor, since if he gives up there is no John Wick franchise. I've reworded it a bit though. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::Fair enough, though I still think it could be condensed further without losing important context. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>"The script included elements such as John's elderly dog, his long-deceased wife Charon, Winston, the Continental, and the underworld gold coins" – is a comma missing in "his long-deceased wife Charon" or was his wife named after the ferryman in this draft?</s> |
*<s>"The script included elements such as John's elderly dog, his long-deceased wife Charon, Winston, the Continental, and the underworld gold coins" – is a comma missing in "his long-deceased wife Charon" or was his wife named after the ferryman in this draft?</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 151: | Line 156: | ||
*<s>"Reeves's personal experience with bereavement, having lost his partner and their daughter" – I would mention when.</s> |
*<s>"Reeves's personal experience with bereavement, having lost his partner and their daughter" – I would mention when.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*"Stahelski and Leitch emphasized loss and humanity as a fundamental aspect of John" – those are two aspects. |
*<s>"Stahelski and Leitch emphasized loss and humanity as a fundamental aspect of John" – those are two aspects.</s> |
||
*:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::It now says "a fundamental aspects". [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::<s>It now says "a fundamental aspects".</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*<s>"he also took tactical-gun courses with the [[LAPD Metropolitan Division|Los Angeles SWAT]] and [[United States Navy SEALs|Navy SEALs]]. He also learned stunt driving skills, including how to [[Drifting (motorsport)|drift a car]] while aiming a gun." – a bit clunky with two "he also" in quick succession.</s> |
*<s>"he also took tactical-gun courses with the [[LAPD Metropolitan Division|Los Angeles SWAT]] and [[United States Navy SEALs|Navy SEALs]]. He also learned stunt driving skills, including how to [[Drifting (motorsport)|drift a car]] while aiming a gun." – a bit clunky with two "he also" in quick succession.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*"He generally played his character as a [[straight man]] with some quirks." – that's a rather odd description, and it doesn't match the one given by the source particularly well (which says "We tempered the over-the-top action with sort of dry, comedic moments. We had great performances and input from Michael Nyqvist who played it straight and he was excellent. He was a quirky villain."). |
*<s>"He generally played his character as a [[straight man]] with some quirks." – that's a rather odd description, and it doesn't match the one given by the source particularly well (which says "We tempered the over-the-top action with sort of dry, comedic moments. We had great performances and input from Michael Nyqvist who played it straight and he was excellent. He was a quirky villain.").</s> |
||
*:I was confused on this one, the quote you've added says he played it straight, he was a quirky villain, and the content in the article says he played it as a straight man, with quirks. I'm not sure where the deviation is. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:I was confused on this one, the quote you've added says he played it straight, he was a quirky villain, and the content in the article says he played it as a straight man, with quirks. I'm not sure where the deviation is. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::Playing something straight and being a [[straight man]] are two completely different things. The former is when a portrayal of something conforms to audience expectations of that thing without e.g. exaggeration, subversion, or meta-humour. The latter is an archetype in a comedy duo (or occasionally larger groups). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::<s>Playing something straight and being a [[straight man]] are two completely different things. The former is when a portrayal of something conforms to audience expectations of that thing without e.g. exaggeration, subversion, or meta-humour. The latter is an archetype in a comedy duo (or occasionally larger groups).</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::I've reworded it [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::I've reworded it [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::Much better. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>"He found some of the physical punishment his character endures and spontaneous additions of Russian dialogue he had to quickly learn difficult." – this is a bit difficult to parse.</s> |
*<s>"He found some of the physical punishment his character endures and spontaneous additions of Russian dialogue he had to quickly learn difficult." – this is a bit difficult to parse.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 175: | Line 181: | ||
;Release |
;Release |
||
*"Lionsgate announced ''John Wick'' would play in [[IMAX]] theaters, which was seen as a premium theatrical experience" – "seen as"? |
*<s>"Lionsgate announced ''John Wick'' would play in [[IMAX]] theaters, which was seen as a premium theatrical experience" – "seen as"?</s> |
||
*:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::"considered a premium theatrical experience" is not much better. IMAX is literally a premium theatrical experience in the sense that it is a more expensive one. If "premium" is meant to denote "superior" here, a different word choice should be used. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::<s>"considered a premium theatrical experience" is not much better. IMAX is literally a premium theatrical experience in the sense that it is a more expensive one. If "premium" is meant to denote "superior" here, a different word choice should be used.</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::Changed to "superior" [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Changed to "superior" [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*<s>"By October 2014, the box office was facing a downturn." – ''the'' box office? That should indicate that we're talking worldwide, but the ''IndieWire'' source specifies that it's about the US/Canada market.</s> |
*<s>"By October 2014, the box office was facing a downturn." – ''the'' box office? That should indicate that we're talking worldwide, but the ''IndieWire'' source specifies that it's about the US/Canada market.</s> |
||
Line 185: | Line 191: | ||
*::That seems like crafting a narrative to me. Do sources on ''John Wick'' present this narrative? [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::That seems like crafting a narrative to me. Do sources on ''John Wick'' present this narrative? [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::They don't talk about John Wick at all because it wasn't a blip on anyone's radar, Wick is only generally mentioned in retrospect once it turned outt o be a success and that noone expected it to do well until it did. I'm not trying to craft a narrative, the sources are generally industry professional analysis and it provided some additional context, especially since it's success was unexpected but still very modest and so there isn't a great deal of context that can be provided in the box office section. The only other organic links there are Ouija and Fury, two films that have since been completely forgotten and so don't provide much to the reader. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::They don't talk about John Wick at all because it wasn't a blip on anyone's radar, Wick is only generally mentioned in retrospect once it turned outt o be a success and that noone expected it to do well until it did. I'm not trying to craft a narrative, the sources are generally industry professional analysis and it provided some additional context, especially since it's success was unexpected but still very modest and so there isn't a great deal of context that can be provided in the box office section. The only other organic links there are Ouija and Fury, two films that have since been completely forgotten and so don't provide much to the reader. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::::That's kind of my point. I get that you are trying to establish context and are not consciously crafting a favourable narrative, but the choice of details to provide and the way in which they are presented creates a framing nonetheless, and in this case it is a fairly flattering one. That's a problem when it comes from Wikipedia rather than from our sources. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*"The film attracted a mostly male audience, about 77% of which were over 25 years of age." – 77% of the male audience or 77% of the overall audience? |
*<s>"The film attracted a mostly male audience, about 77% of which were over 25 years of age." – 77% of the male audience or 77% of the overall audience?</s> |
||
*:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::"The film primarily drew a male audience, with approximately 77% of the viewers being aged over 25 years." resolves the ambiguity but creates the expectation that "77%" refers to the proportion of viewers who were male. Replacing "with" with "and" would solve this. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::<s>"The film primarily drew a male audience, with approximately 77% of the viewers being aged over 25 years." resolves the ambiguity but creates the expectation that "77%" refers to the proportion of viewers who were male. Replacing "with" with "and" would solve this.</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''New comment''': "performing well in Germany ($3.7 million), France ($3.2 million), Australia ($2.8 million), Taiwan ($2.6 million), Russia ($2.59 million), the United Kingdom ($2.4 million), and Japan ($2.3 million), among others." – the cited sources[https://deadline.com/2014/11/international-box-office-guardians-of-the-galaxy-number-2-movie-2014-turtles-china-maze-runner-kung-fu-jungle-happy-new-year-1201271064/][https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr2104775173/] do not say that all of these were good performances. In fact, they don't say that any of them were—all we get in terms of qualitative judgments is about a couple of opening grosses. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*'''New comment''': "Outside the U.S. and Canada, ''John Wick'' is estimated to have grossing" – anacoluthon. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*<s>'''New comment''': "performing well in Germany ($3.7 million), France ($3.2 million), Australia ($2.8 million), Taiwan ($2.6 million), Russia ($2.59 million), the United Kingdom ($2.4 million), and Japan ($2.3 million), among others." – the cited sources[https://deadline.com/2014/11/international-box-office-guardians-of-the-galaxy-number-2-movie-2014-turtles-china-maze-runner-kung-fu-jungle-happy-new-year-1201271064/][https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr2104775173/] do not say that all of these were good performances. In fact, they don't say that any of them were—all we get in terms of qualitative judgments is about a couple of opening grosses.</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*<s>"This made it the 114th-highest-grossing film outside of the U.S. and Canada." – really need to specify that this is about movies released in 2014.</s> |
*<s>"This made it the 114th-highest-grossing film outside of the U.S. and Canada." – really need to specify that this is about movies released in 2014.</s> |
||
Line 199: | Line 207: | ||
*<s>"Critics were near unanimous in their praise for Reeves's performance" – that's a pretty strong statement. Do any of the sources say that critics were near unanimous?</s> |
*<s>"Critics were near unanimous in their praise for Reeves's performance" – that's a pretty strong statement. Do any of the sources say that critics were near unanimous?</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''New comment''': "Critics, including [[Peter Travers]] and [[Stephanie Zacharek]] praised Reeves's performance, describing it as a return to form." – there is either one comma too many or one too few; "including [[Peter Travers]] and [[Stephanie Zacharek]]" could be enclosed by commas or the first comma could be removed. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*<s>'''New comment''': "Critics, including [[Peter Travers]] and [[Stephanie Zacharek]] praised Reeves's performance, describing it as a return to form." – there is either one comma too many or one too few; "including [[Peter Travers]] and [[Stephanie Zacharek]]" could be enclosed by commas or the first comma could be removed.</s> [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*<s>"They noted that the choreography was inventive" – that's an opinion rather than a fact.</s> |
*<s>"They noted that the choreography was inventive" – that's an opinion rather than a fact.</s> |
||
Line 210: | Line 218: | ||
*:It was the best selling home release and second best rental? What do you consider a success? I've changed it regardless [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:It was the best selling home release and second best rental? What do you consider a success? I've changed it regardless [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::I would be much more likely to consider something that does not need such restrictive qualifiers (calendar month, specific week) to be at or near the top to be a success. This is yet another example of something that comes across as superlative-chasing. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::I would be much more likely to consider something that does not need such restrictive qualifiers (calendar month, specific week) to be at or near the top to be a success. This is yet another example of something that comes across as superlative-chasing. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*Why is there both a "Other media" subsection here and a "Sequels and spin-offs" section further below? It would seem much more logical to me to cover all of it under a "Franchise" heading or similar. |
*<s>Why is there both a "Other media" subsection here and a "Sequels and spin-offs" section further below? It would seem much more logical to me to cover all of it under a "Franchise" heading or similar.</s> |
||
:This is for non-film content relating to ''John Wick'', the sequels is for film content relating to ''John Wick''. It would be awkward to be constantly flipping back and forth between mentioning video games and sequels as they are released, plus comic books, any anything else. Other media would also include merchandise if there were anything notable for it. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:This is for non-film content relating to ''John Wick'', the sequels is for film content relating to ''John Wick''. It would be awkward to be constantly flipping back and forth between mentioning video games and sequels as they are released, plus comic books, any anything else. Other media would also include merchandise if there were anything notable for it. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::Can't say I see why that would be a problem—putting everything under a "Franchise" heading would be a perfectly cromulent [[WP:Summary style]] solution with the [[John Wick]] franchise article—but okay. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>"According to Ann C. Hall, John Wick is a postmodern epic hero in a contemporary epic universe." – should probably link [[Epic (genre)]] or [[Epic poetry]] here.</s> |
*<s>"According to Ann C. Hall, John Wick is a postmodern epic hero in a contemporary epic universe." – should probably link [[Epic (genre)]] or [[Epic poetry]] here.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 226: | Line 235: | ||
*"The mythology involved in the film's criminal underworld, such as a unique currency and strict rules, is also seen as contributing to the film's success." – rather redundant to "The mythology in ''John Wick'' was identified as a key aspect that differentiated it from other action movies, particularly the codes and rules that govern the criminals" in a previous section. |
*"The mythology involved in the film's criminal underworld, such as a unique currency and strict rules, is also seen as contributing to the film's success." – rather redundant to "The mythology in ''John Wick'' was identified as a key aspect that differentiated it from other action movies, particularly the codes and rules that govern the criminals" in a previous section. |
||
:I've trimmed it down to just mythology, the first is the contemporary reception, the second is the enduring part of its reception |
:I've trimmed it down to just mythology, the first is the contemporary reception, the second is the enduring part of its reception |
||
*"Like how ''John Wick'' was influenced by the history of action cinema, it is seen as an influence on many action films that followed, such as ''[[Atomic Blonde]]'' (2017), ''[[Guns Akimbo]]'' (2019), and ''[[Extraction (2020 film)|Extraction]]'' (2020); and 2021 films ''[[Gunpowder Milkshake]]'', ''[[Jolt (film)|Jolt]]'', ''[[The Protégé]]'', and ''[[Nobody (2021 film)|Nobody]]''—which was also written by Kolstad and produced by Leitch." – bordering on [[run-on sentence]]. It also relies on "was" as opposed to "were" to clarify that only ''Nobody'' was by Kolstad and Leitch, which is suboptimal. |
*<s>"Like how ''John Wick'' was influenced by the history of action cinema, it is seen as an influence on many action films that followed, such as ''[[Atomic Blonde]]'' (2017), ''[[Guns Akimbo]]'' (2019), and ''[[Extraction (2020 film)|Extraction]]'' (2020); and 2021 films ''[[Gunpowder Milkshake]]'', ''[[Jolt (film)|Jolt]]'', ''[[The Protégé]]'', and ''[[Nobody (2021 film)|Nobody]]''—which was also written by Kolstad and produced by Leitch." – bordering on [[run-on sentence]]. It also relies on "was" as opposed to "were" to clarify that only ''Nobody'' was by Kolstad and Leitch, which is suboptimal.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*<s>"the characters pragmatic attitude" – missing apostrophe.</s> |
*<s>"the characters pragmatic attitude" – missing apostrophe.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*"[[MovieWeb]] wrote John's in-narrative status as a legendary character before the film begins was a "genius" decision that adds depth to the character and the film's universe while keeping him sympathetic through the loss of his wife and puppy." – this is a [[garden-path sentence]] due to the lack of "that" after "wrote" (did "[[MovieWeb]] [write] John's in-narrative status as a legendary character"?). Also, the stuff before "while" is one point and the stuff after it a separate one, but it's phrased as if the latter is part of the former—the in-narrative status as a legendary character does not keep him sympathetic. |
*<s>"[[MovieWeb]] wrote John's in-narrative status as a legendary character before the film begins was a "genius" decision that adds depth to the character and the film's universe while keeping him sympathetic through the loss of his wife and puppy." – this is a [[garden-path sentence]] due to the lack of "that" after "wrote" (did "[[MovieWeb]] [write] John's in-narrative status as a legendary character"?). Also, the stuff before "while" is one point and the stuff after it a separate one, but it's phrased as if the latter is part of the former—the in-narrative status as a legendary character does not keep him sympathetic.</s> |
||
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Changed [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
Line 238: | Line 247: | ||
*::I don't know that an exact cut-off can be pre-specified, but I certainly wouldn't describe number 14 or number 27 as one of the highest-grossing. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
*::I don't know that an exact cut-off can be pre-specified, but I certainly wouldn't describe number 14 or number 27 as one of the highest-grossing. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:::Seems like OR to me, if the source calls it one of the year's highest-grossing films why are we inveting goalposts for it? There is also [https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/09/10/john-wick-chapter-3-keanu-reeves-mission-impossible-tom-cruise-fast-furious-vin-diesel-hunger-games-jurassic-marvel-james-bond-box-office/ this source from Forbes] which similarly points out its a success. I can reword it to "one of the year's most financially successful films" or something but in terms of sequel on sequel success, profitability, and being even the 27th highest grossing film in a year filled with comic book movies and big budget sequels, I don't think its success is unsupported. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
*:::Seems like OR to me, if the source calls it one of the year's highest-grossing films why are we inveting goalposts for it? There is also [https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/09/10/john-wick-chapter-3-keanu-reeves-mission-impossible-tom-cruise-fast-furious-vin-diesel-hunger-games-jurassic-marvel-james-bond-box-office/ this source from Forbes] which similarly points out its a success. I can reword it to "one of the year's most financially successful films" or something but in terms of sequel on sequel success, profitability, and being even the 27th highest grossing film in a year filled with comic book movies and big budget sequels, I don't think its success is unsupported. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''New comment''': "earning critical praise" – the neutral phrasing is that someone or something ''receives'' praise, as "earn" also means "deserve". [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC) |
|||
;Summary |
|||
I'm afraid I'm going to have to '''oppose''' at this point. This is based on overall prose quality, neutrality (both in terms of the general tone and specific issues such as the ones I have outlined above), and the sourcing issues I discovered when double-checking a few things that seemed questionable to me. That last point in particular gives me pause, because I did not conduct anything approaching a thorough spot-check, so the fact that I found what I consider to be serious sourcing problems suggests to me there are likely more such problems that are as-yet undiscovered. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
I'm afraid I'm going to have to '''oppose''' at this point. This is based on overall prose quality, neutrality (both in terms of the general tone and specific issues such as the ones I have outlined above), and the sourcing issues I discovered when double-checking a few things that seemed questionable to me. That last point in particular gives me pause, because I did not conduct anything approaching a thorough spot-check, so the fact that I found what I consider to be serious sourcing problems suggests to me there are likely more such problems that are as-yet undiscovered. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
::I'm sure it's normal to let me address your comments before throwing an oppose in there. Seems unnecessary. As per the last point giving you so much concern, it's sourced, what can I say. I will need time to deal with the rest. Also I only use reliable sources, I have thrown away good references containing information I needed because the source wasn't reliable, the sources are not questionable and your concerns about Screen Rant have been addressed in my previous FAC reviews. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 21:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
::I'm sure it's normal to let me address your comments before throwing an oppose in there. Seems unnecessary. As per the last point giving you so much concern, it's sourced, what can I say. I will need time to deal with the rest. Also I only use reliable sources, I have thrown away good references containing information I needed because the source wasn't reliable, the sources are not questionable and your concerns about Screen Rant have been addressed in my previous FAC reviews. [[User:Darkwarriorblake|Darkwarriorblake]] ([[User talk:Darkwarriorblake|talk]]) 21:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:34, 16 September 2023
John Wick (film)
John Wick (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Featured article candidates/John Wick (film)/archive1
- Featured article candidates/John Wick (film)/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is about the 2014 action film John Wick which became popular for deviating away from the typical action styles of its time (shaky cam and not being able to tell what the hell is going on) for long, choreographed action set pieces with wide shots showing you every move. It helped revitalize Keanu Reeves declining career and created an action franchise that has already managed to become one of the most financially successful in film history. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- This article Dakrwarriorblake developed highlights how John Wick quietly became one of the most influential films of the 2010s. The action genre was definitely struggling because of the shaky hand-held cinematography and rapid-editing techniques that takes you out of the plot. Along came John Wick and it was a breath of fresh air for having long, choreographed action set pieces with wide shots showing you every move.
- It amazing how this film struggled to find a distributor two months before release. Hdog1996 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments from TheJoebro64
Funny enough, I just watched this movie for the first time the other week and it immediately became one of my favorites. Can't wait to give this a read. JOEBRO64 23:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- @TheJoebro64 just scrolling past and noticed this comment from almost 3 weeks ago. Still planning to review? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yup! Just been extremely busy as of late. I'll have a review posted by tomorrow. JOEBRO64 13:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Don't have too much to say, nice work. (Though that's to be expected!) Some comments:
- I was a little surprised by how short the "Thematic analysis" subsection is given how popular the franchise ended up becoming. I'd take a search through the Wikipedia Library to see if any interesting articles worth adding pop up.
- There are a lot of quotes, as well as scare quotes that aren't strictly needed (example: "Reviews praised the action scenes for their "fluidity" and "grace"..."). I'd do some work paraphrasing long quotes and removing unnecessary quote marks.
- I noticed a few single-sentence paragraphs throughout my read (specifically in "Home media" and "Cultural influence"), try integrating those in other paragraphs
- "Reeves was accompanied by Andy the puppy"—this comes at a point where it's been so long since we mentioned Andy that I think he should be reintroduced at this point. Something like "... Andy, the puppy that portrays John's dog."
- "...though there was criticism the actors were underused" Maybe give some examples of specific critiques?
That's all from me. Sorry the review took so long! JOEBRO64 01:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK I think I have addressed all of these. Regarding the Thematic Analysis, if you see my response below to Piotrus, I have reviewed a lot of works but they don't provide any information not already present in the article since they all seem to come to the same conclusion, mainly focusing on how Wick is like Reeves and what Reeves' public persona brings to the film. Most sources that might come up in a search of John Wick only discuss it off hand in relation to Reeves career or, most often, it's sequels and so the content for a larger section just doesn't seem to exist at the moment. I made the point that similar films in the 80s can have much more interpretation because the creators are influenced by the Vietnam War (Aliens), the fall of American exceptionalism (Die Hard), the rise of Reagonomics (Ghostbusters), and the changing role of men and women in the home and the resulting rise of hyper macho leading men (Schwarzenegger films, Die Hard, Predator, Ghostbusters II (moreso the focus on fatherhood in that last one), etc.). It was an incredibly interesting and fast developing era so there's a lot of content to draw from whereas the 2010s are mainly about the trauma of the rise of Michael Bay and overreliance on CGI as well as just a tonne of sequels and the ubiquity of the MCU. In John Wick's case it is a response to those shaky cam heavy films like Bourne, Batman Begins, etc, but these are filmmaking techniques mentioned throughout the article rather than themes. The content may come in time, especially if JW4 is the last one as I imagine we'll get more retrospective assessments, but I do not believe the content is there right now. John Wick was also a much smaller film, while hte franchise has done well it's not comparable to the 40 years Die Hard has had to be analysed so I don't think it's getting substantial coverage yet either. Technically there is a lot to analyse there given Kolstad was influenced by aforementioned 80s action films as were the directors so they were technically influenced by the same things outlined above plus they're old enough to have experienced those things first hand, but noone seems to have made that connection and wrote that analysis. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TheJoebro64, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- I found DWB's response satisfactory and don't have much else to say, so you can call this a support JOEBRO64 20:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Image review
- File:John_Wick_TeaserPoster.jpg: is there something missing from the "other information" parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Someone had put a "D" in it (heyo), I've removed it and it's auto filled with the default text. Thanks Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments from Piotrus
I am somewhat concerned regarding comprehensivness. The article is well structured, but sources don't seem to contain many academic works (there are some academic books cited, but only a single journal article, Hall 2022). A GScholar query like [1] suggests there is more literatre to review and cite. Ex. [2], [3]. Going back to the academic books, The Worlds Of John Wick is a collection of 15 essays. Several arguably are not very relevant being concerned with subsequent movies, but the nominated article cites only three, whereas close to a ten appear relevant. Why aren't others, like The Continental Abys: John Wick versus the Frankfurt School or Phenomenology of John Wick (and others) used? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's a 456 page book, I read through it and identified the relevant content, some essays are just people either discussing other things and mentioning John Wick in only a cursory way and others state claims based on information that is incorrect, misstating scenes/names/locations/etc, or not backed up by any other external sources and so is an outlier claim that I cannot establish genuine notability for. Some just discuss iconography but don't add anything not present elsewhere in the article. It was a terrible read and a very poor book that I'm surprised was published. Similarly to the tandfonline link which has a summary of "The results of this study indicate that the meaning of crime shown in the John Wick film displays and communicates four forms of crime, namely: shooting, killing, beating, and maltreating. The four forms of criminality are influenced by the ideology of masculinity and extremism. Masculinity is a cultural construction attached to men, extremism is a radical belief in a concept. The ideology of masculinity is constructed from the ideology of patriarchy and capitalism and the ideology of extremism is constructed from the ideology of fanaticism." That isn't particularly novel, insightful, or thoughtful content and appears to be operating at the most base level, but I also cannot find any independent notability to any of the three authors either outside of these essays and/or assocation with the university sans role. I will take another look at Google Scholar but I did evaluate the many available sources but most just restate what is already present in the article, and per the link you have shared, most of the results are for later films in the series or are talking about the film in an off hand way such as the one discussing Keanu Reeves, the evolution of the action genre, or are foreign language meaning any intended analysis is likely lost in translation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- So I've researched these and only found one that talks directly about the film (John Wick, and the myths and tensions between star brands and franchise properties), and even then it's only in the context of Keanu Reeves external stardom and influence on the film, which is present in the article but I will add that source tomorrow to back up existing content. I think my previous Analysis sections demonstrate that I do the research on these films, but John Wick is only an 8 year old film that was a modest success leading to bigger things, it's neither 30+ years old like Die Hard or an action film from the 80s where they're all compared to the Vietnam War and influenced by Reagonomics and the rise of ultra macho men coinciding with efforts to reestablish American exceptionalism, so I just don't think the content is there yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, which I consider well argued. I don't have any further objections as I concur this is not a topic that will have a lot of academic souces about itself, and I AGF that you've read all of the sources and cited the most relevant ones. Given "It was a terrible read and a very poor book that I'm surprised was published", I'd even encurage you to write an acadeic review of the book and publish it somewhere (in a sociology / media journal) - those are not hard to write (~800 words or so on average). I've published a few and would be happy to offer assistance on or off wiki if needed. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- So I've researched these and only found one that talks directly about the film (John Wick, and the myths and tensions between star brands and franchise properties), and even then it's only in the context of Keanu Reeves external stardom and influence on the film, which is present in the article but I will add that source tomorrow to back up existing content. I think my previous Analysis sections demonstrate that I do the research on these films, but John Wick is only an 8 year old film that was a modest success leading to bigger things, it's neither 30+ years old like Die Hard or an action film from the 80s where they're all compared to the Vietnam War and influenced by Reagonomics and the rise of ultra macho men coinciding with efforts to reestablish American exceptionalism, so I just don't think the content is there yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Piotrus, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild Thank you for the ping. Count me as weak support. I did not read the article in detail, but the parts I looked at, plus my concerns addressed above, give me a postitive impression. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Pamzeis
I have not seen this film (that seems to be a recurring theme with your articles and me). It's been a while since I reviewed one of your articles, so I will try not to screw anything up.
- "on October 7, 2013, on" (the one in the lead) — I have not read the rest of the article, so I might just be missing context, but is the exact date so significant it deserves a lead mention??
- "kills him and escapes" — Is "him" John or Harry? OK, me from the future here. I thought "him" was John and read the rest of the plot, and was really confused on how John was doing all this stuff.
- "moved closer to the film industry in Los Angeles" — does this mean he moved to LA or a city close to LA??
- "Reeves's personal experience with bereavement" — is there anything else that can be said about this experience?
I'm the end of the casting section right now. It might be a week or so before I can complete this review given the article's pretty long (actually it's pretty short for a DWB article, but...) Pamzeis (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pamzeis! Long time no see. I've made the above changes you've pointed out, hope it's an interesting read for you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- It’s up to you, but maybe make the context section a little less wordy. Hdog1996 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- What does everyone have against my brief context sections? :( Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- It’s up to you, but maybe make the context section a little less wordy. Hdog1996 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Continuing my review:
- "combines the familiar in the private" — sorry if this is obvious, but what does "familiar" refer to here? And familiar to whom??
- "while some aspects of the underworld did not work" — is very vague... is this bit needed?
- "Supervising stunt coordinator J. J. Perry; Stahelski; and 87Eleven Productions associates John Valera, Jon Eusebio, Danny Hernandez, Guillermo Grispo, Eric Brown, the Machado brothers, Jackson Spidell, and armorer Taran Butler; had developed for an earlier film a combat style" — I'm really confused what is being said here. So would I be correct thinking that all these people worked on some film released before John Wick with that combat style?
- "and lit characters to maintain" — what manner/style did he light the characters in? Or like, were all the character not in shadows or something?
- "difficulties filming the scene because" — which scene? The previous sentence refers to the plural "scenes"
- "this received a more positive response from Iwanyk, who said: "Holy shit! This is good!"" — is this necessary? One would assume the final cut received a positive response if it was redone because Iwanyk disliked it
- "criticism the actors were underused" — McShane and Nygv-ist... how do you spell it? OK, I wasn't that far off, it's "Nyqvist". Back to the point, McShane and Nyqvist specifically or also other supporting actors?
More to come... Pamzeis (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pamzeis, I've done most of these except "and lit characters to maintain". I might be lacking the technical knowledge to fully understand what he means. The full quote from the book is "At the beginning of John Wick there was a lot of sigt light, but there was also some hard. It's not always a hard light, but there's a lot of in and out that sometimes are between color, and sometimes between shadow and a hard source. Even when he (I believe he means John Wick) goes to the club, he's in shadow, and he steps into the light. There's a lot of those things to keep the mystery. There's always so much mystery between characters, you don't know who to trust. Even when he goes with Willem Dafoe and opens the window and there's the shafts of light. Again, you wanted to give them options and choices to who lights who. Who's in the light and who's in the dark. Always. So I just went with it. Every scene-and with every character-I tried to tell a story with light." I don't know if that makes any more sense to you than me, I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase that part. EDIT: I believe he's referring to Hard and soft light but I don't understand it enough to convey it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I don't understand this either, but if any editor does, feel free to jump in! Pamzeis (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pamzeis, I've done most of these except "and lit characters to maintain". I might be lacking the technical knowledge to fully understand what he means. The full quote from the book is "At the beginning of John Wick there was a lot of sigt light, but there was also some hard. It's not always a hard light, but there's a lot of in and out that sometimes are between color, and sometimes between shadow and a hard source. Even when he (I believe he means John Wick) goes to the club, he's in shadow, and he steps into the light. There's a lot of those things to keep the mystery. There's always so much mystery between characters, you don't know who to trust. Even when he goes with Willem Dafoe and opens the window and there's the shafts of light. Again, you wanted to give them options and choices to who lights who. Who's in the light and who's in the dark. Always. So I just went with it. Every scene-and with every character-I tried to tell a story with light." I don't know if that makes any more sense to you than me, I'm open to suggestions on how to rephrase that part. EDIT: I believe he's referring to Hard and soft light but I don't understand it enough to convey it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, last few bits:
- "It fails the requirement of objectivity because John is the protagonist and is generally presented positively." — seems like this is an opinion, but it's stated as a fact
- "John Wick is regarded as one of the best action films ever made." — By whom?
- "popular film series such as Die Hard and Rambo had been generally replaced with "forgettable" fare that heavily relied on CGI, shaky camera movements, and rapid edits, or a focus on larger-than-life superhuman bouts in superhero films." — is stated in wikivoice when it's an opinion
- "John as a groundbreaking role for Reeves whose pragmatic attitude, slick appearance, and relatable revenge story" — sounds like its saying Reeves, not John, has these characteristics
That's it, I think. Mostly very minor issues, so I'll go ahead and support. Pamzeis (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pamzeis, I've done most of these, I was a bit confused by the third point because the segment starts saying its commentary by publications? Is it still not classed as opinion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, but what I'm trying to say is: it isn't made clear/established that that sentence is also an opinion. From my interpretation, the article is presenting it as a factual explanation for why action films were in decline, not additional commentary by the publications. Bottom line: that bit needs in-text attribution IMO. Pamzeis (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's OK, I've changed that sentence. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply, but what I'm trying to say is: it isn't made clear/established that that sentence is also an opinion. From my interpretation, the article is presenting it as a factual explanation for why action films were in decline, not additional commentary by the publications. Bottom line: that bit needs in-text attribution IMO. Pamzeis (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Pamzeis, I've done most of these, I was a bit confused by the third point because the segment starts saying its commentary by publications? Is it still not classed as opinion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Source review
Reviewing this version, spot-check upon request and keep in mind that popular culture isn't my area of expertise. Have these sources been mined for stuff? Is JoBlo.com a reliable source? Apart from the free-access icons, the source formatting seems consistent. Is https://www.fancypantshomes.com/ really the best source for the where it was casted claims? Ditto using Carl F. Bucherer as a source - I think using a source associated with the film and not the company would be better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, if you see my responses to Piotrus and Joe above, I have gone through google scholar, I've bought books, read a 300+ page that was pretty much fluff, I have done a lot of research on the academic side, and while I won't reiterate what I've said above as it was quite lengthy, I have reviewed sources appropriately.
- Fancypantshome is a stupid name but it is specialized in what it is sourcing and does have an Abous Us page that lists the writer among hte staff here
- Yes I believe JoBlo to be reliable, it's been around for 25+ years and regularly features industry news ahead of some contemporaries, and has been mentioned by sites such as Variety and filmmakers such as Kevin Smith.
- I've replaced the Bucherer ref Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- The problem I see with fancypantshome is that the source link reads like a typical corporate website, not the kind of place where I'd go look for casting information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you mean Casting? The fancy pants home reference is only being used for "The first five days of filming began in Mill Neck village with scenes at John's house." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. In other words, I am not sure that this is a high-quality source for production information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'd disagree, for sourcing the location of John Wick's house it seems perfectly fine, but I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, this passes, my caveats about this topic not being something I know very well in mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'd disagree, for sourcing the location of John Wick's house it seems perfectly fine, but I've removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. In other words, I am not sure that this is a high-quality source for production information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you mean Casting? The fancy pants home reference is only being used for "The first five days of filming began in Mill Neck village with scenes at John's house." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- The problem I see with fancypantshome is that the source link reads like a typical corporate website, not the kind of place where I'd go look for casting information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
I'll try to get round to this in the next few days. As an initial comment, I stand by what I said on the talk page about the car details in the plot section a few months ago. TompaDompa (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- That's ok, we did resolve it though Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TompaDompa, just checking to see whether there will be any more from you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I'll probably be done within a few hours. TompaDompa (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hi TompaDompa, just checking to see whether there will be any more from you? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- General comments
- The article has a rather laudatory tone.
- It was a lauded film, you'd have to point out anything specific as I tend to use neutral tone unless something can be backed up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have given a number of examples below (e.g. the thing about chasing superlatives), and they are non-exhaustive. This article looks like a labour of love, which is to say that it reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, that is not the case, my project is taking important films from each year and elevating them. I haven't seen Se7en or Saving Private Ryan for probably 20 years before writing their articles, where my favorite film of 1995 and 1997, respectively, would be Die Hard With a Vengeance and There's Something About Mary/Blade. If I were doing films in a series I liked the most I'd have done John Wick 2. Superlatives are exaggerated statements and you mainly seemed to mention the "best action" and the like, and I've sourced these amply, they're not exaggerated descriptors.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not necessarily referring to you; I don't know which parts of the article were written by which editor. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, that is not the case, my project is taking important films from each year and elevating them. I haven't seen Se7en or Saving Private Ryan for probably 20 years before writing their articles, where my favorite film of 1995 and 1997, respectively, would be Die Hard With a Vengeance and There's Something About Mary/Blade. If I were doing films in a series I liked the most I'd have done John Wick 2. Superlatives are exaggerated statements and you mainly seemed to mention the "best action" and the like, and I've sourced these amply, they're not exaggerated descriptors.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have given a number of examples below (e.g. the thing about chasing superlatives), and they are non-exhaustive. This article looks like a labour of love, which is to say that it reads as if it were written by a fan of the film. It is of course expected that film articles will to a large extent be written by fans (because fans are more likely to be interested in working on the article than non-fans), but it's not supposed to shine through. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- It was a lauded film, you'd have to point out anything specific as I tend to use neutral tone unless something can be backed up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly impressed by the images. Seven out of ten are just headshots of people, with the other three being the poster, the Beaver Building, and an additional photograph of Reeves where he poses for the camera.
- I'm not sure what you're asking here? It's pictures of people in the film, a picture of the most important building in the film, and a picture of Reeves at a screening of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not something that needs to be fixed, just a suggestion about a possible area where improvements could be made. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're asking here? It's pictures of people in the film, a picture of the most important building in the film, and a picture of Reeves at a screening of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- A lot of the article appears to be based on interviews with the filmmakers, which seems less than ideal.
- Where else is this information going to come from? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ideally: secondary, independent sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would argue that any information there is only going to come from those involved for the most part. We know when filming for Mission Impossible Fallout ended because Christopher McQuarrie posted on his instagram and a few sites reposted that information. It is/was a relatively small film and wasn't getting a substantial amount of coverage, it was only bought for distribution two months before its release and was expected to be another low-bduget Keanu Reeves failure so some info is going to come from interviews, I wouldn't say a lot of the references are such and where they are they are still reliable sources. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ideally: secondary, independent sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Where else is this information going to come from? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- There are very many quotes. To me, it affects the overall impression negatively.
- There are certain things I can't phrase in a neutral way or convey the same meaning as "doesn't say a lot, but when he does, the Earth moves. If John and Viggo are the gods of New York, Winston is the titan" when its the actors opinion of the character Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't disagree in principle that some things need to be given as verbatim quotes, but we don't seem to agree about the number of instances where that's necessary. I don't think that format is needed for either of the two quotes with profanity, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is it the profanity that is the issue? I've removed the one by Iwanyk but I think the other one is too good to get rid of in context Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, the profanity just made them stand out to me—profanity in quotes appears sparingly on Wikipedia, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Is it the profanity that is the issue? I've removed the one by Iwanyk but I think the other one is too good to get rid of in context Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't disagree in principle that some things need to be given as verbatim quotes, but we don't seem to agree about the number of instances where that's necessary. I don't think that format is needed for either of the two quotes with profanity, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- There are certain things I can't phrase in a neutral way or convey the same meaning as "doesn't say a lot, but when he does, the Earth moves. If John and Viggo are the gods of New York, Winston is the titan" when its the actors opinion of the character Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is a fairly lengthy article at more than 8,000 words. It need not be as lengthy as it is. Copyediting for brevity and removing extraneous details could probably shorten this by about a thousand words.
- It's in no way lengthy, it's one of my shorter articles, see WP:SIZE. It's already been copy edited, removing 1000 words from it would make it a crappy article, that's a lot of content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect we will have to agree to disagree about whether 8,000 words is lengthy. An article being lengthy is not necessarily a problem—I have written articles of similar length myself—but articles shouldn't be longer than they need to be. I'm not suggesting a WP:SIZESPLIT here (that's certainly not motivated), I'm saying judicious copyediting could "trim the fat", as it were. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's in no way lengthy, it's one of my shorter articles, see WP:SIZE. It's already been copy edited, removing 1000 words from it would make it a crappy article, that's a lot of content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- WP:FACR 1c requires high-quality sources (not just reliable ones), and there are quite a few sources cited in the article that I would not characterize as high-quality. Screen Rant is an obvious example. I don't know if there are better sources that could be used, but it's not a good sign.
- There was a source review above and sources such as Screen Rant have been used in lots of the featured articles I've passed recently. I regularly get rid of sources even when they have all the content I could hope for if they're not reliable. Not everything can be the New York Times and Vanity Fair won't be releasing articles regularly on a 2014 action film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Lead
New comment: With this discussion in mind, I have to ask whether Stahelski and Kolstad belong in the first sentence over Reeves.TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)- That discussion isn't over but in this case I would argue that all four people (Leitch, Kolstad, Reeves, and Stahelski) are fundamental to its success, it's Kolstad's script which is considered original, it's Leitch and Stahelski's experience as stunt coordinators that let them direct the action in a way that popularized the longer complex takes over the constant quick cuts of confusing close ups, another reason the film stood out, and the analysis near the bottom identifies Reeves public persona as fundamental to the title character. I think Reeves introduction works well in the article where it is as he is introduced very early but it's integrated well with the plot summary. Leitch obviously isn't present as he isn't credited as a director. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. I think it might be better to have the first sentence be plain "John Wick is a 2014 American action thriller film." and relegate everything else to subsequent sentences, but I suppose this works too. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- That discussion isn't over but in this case I would argue that all four people (Leitch, Kolstad, Reeves, and Stahelski) are fundamental to its success, it's Kolstad's script which is considered original, it's Leitch and Stahelski's experience as stunt coordinators that let them direct the action in a way that popularized the longer complex takes over the constant quick cuts of confusing close ups, another reason the film stood out, and the analysis near the bottom identifies Reeves public persona as fundamental to the title character. I think Reeves introduction works well in the article where it is as he is introduced very early but it's integrated well with the plot summary. Leitch obviously isn't present as he isn't credited as a director. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
"Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, and Willem Dafoe appear in supporting roles." – seems a bit odd to me to describe Nyqvist and Allen as appearing in supporting roles.
"Lionsgate Films purchased the distribution rights two months before its October 24, 2014, release date." – seems ungrammatical. "Its" refers to the film, which isn't mentioned in the sentence (trivially fixable by adding "to the film" after "distribution rights").
- "earning $86 million worldwide" – avoid "earn" for revenue like this. Use "gross" instead. This recurs in the body.
- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- It remains in the body. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's still "The digital release had earned about $20 million by May 2015". TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Done Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- It remains in the body. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Retrospectively, John Wick is considered one of the greatest action films ever made" – this is a very strong statement to make about a film released not even a decade ago. The sourcing in the body (see below) does not remotely justify this.
- The existing sourcing did back this up, I've added substantial additional referencing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Plot
"John races to New York Harbor, where he fights and mortally wounds Viggo. Resigned to dying from his injuries, John watches on his phone a video of Helen telling him they need to go home." – coming right after a mention of Viggo being mortally wounded, "Resigned to dying from his injuries" would intuitively seem to refer to Viggo rather than John, making this something like a garden-path sentence.
- Production
"During the early 2000s, Derek Kolstad struggled to gain recognition as a screenwriter, despite being related to successful author Lori Wick." – this observation seems rather strange to me. I wouldn't necessarily expect a relative (neither biography specifies their exact relationship) of a successful author to ipso facto make it as a screenwriter, and Lori Wick is not exactly a household name.
The first paragraph consists mostly of fairly tangential details that would seem a better fit in the Derek Kolstad article.- Not really, it's setting up where he was as a writer and that John Wick was his first progression and success. If it was a regular occurrence for him the film would be less of an achievement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can see what you're going for, but things like moving to Los Angeles before almost immediately moving away again are just extraneous levels of detail for this article, "With encouragement from his wife Sonja" reads like something from an outlet that is trying to elicit an emotional response (e.g. a human-interest story) in this context, and starting in the early 2000s and outlining the number of screenplays per year before going into how many screenplays he wrote in total before one was picked up just makes the paragraph needlessly lengthy. Simply stating when he started writing and how many screenplays he wrote before one was picked up gives the reader all the context they need for this film. One or two concise sentences would do the trick, and it might not even need to be a stand-alone paragraph. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- So the reason his wife is mentioned is because he was ready to give up. I think it's unfair to dismiss her contribution, however seemingly minor, since if he gives up there is no John Wick franchise. I've reworded it a bit though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I still think it could be condensed further without losing important context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- So the reason his wife is mentioned is because he was ready to give up. I think it's unfair to dismiss her contribution, however seemingly minor, since if he gives up there is no John Wick franchise. I've reworded it a bit though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can see what you're going for, but things like moving to Los Angeles before almost immediately moving away again are just extraneous levels of detail for this article, "With encouragement from his wife Sonja" reads like something from an outlet that is trying to elicit an emotional response (e.g. a human-interest story) in this context, and starting in the early 2000s and outlining the number of screenplays per year before going into how many screenplays he wrote in total before one was picked up just makes the paragraph needlessly lengthy. Simply stating when he started writing and how many screenplays he wrote before one was picked up gives the reader all the context they need for this film. One or two concise sentences would do the trick, and it might not even need to be a stand-alone paragraph. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Not really, it's setting up where he was as a writer and that John Wick was his first progression and success. If it was a regular occurrence for him the film would be less of an achievement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"The script included elements such as John's elderly dog, his long-deceased wife Charon, Winston, the Continental, and the underworld gold coins" – is a comma missing in "his long-deceased wife Charon" or was his wife named after the ferryman in this draft?
"noir films such as Miller's Crossing (1990)" – Miller's Crossing is generally regarded as neo-noir, not noir.
"drawing influence from comic actors such as Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, and Roscoe Arbuckle" – those are specifically actors known for silent films, which seems odd to omit.
"between $1–$2 million" – MOS:ENBETWEEN.
"Reeves's personal experience with bereavement, having lost his partner and their daughter" – I would mention when.
"Stahelski and Leitch emphasized loss and humanity as a fundamental aspect of John" – those are two aspects.- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
It now says "a fundamental aspects".TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"he also took tactical-gun courses with the Los Angeles SWAT and Navy SEALs. He also learned stunt driving skills, including how to drift a car while aiming a gun." – a bit clunky with two "he also" in quick succession.
"He generally played his character as a straight man with some quirks." – that's a rather odd description, and it doesn't match the one given by the source particularly well (which says "We tempered the over-the-top action with sort of dry, comedic moments. We had great performances and input from Michael Nyqvist who played it straight and he was excellent. He was a quirky villain.").- I was confused on this one, the quote you've added says he played it straight, he was a quirky villain, and the content in the article says he played it as a straight man, with quirks. I'm not sure where the deviation is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Playing something straight and being a straight man are two completely different things. The former is when a portrayal of something conforms to audience expectations of that thing without e.g. exaggeration, subversion, or meta-humour. The latter is an archetype in a comedy duo (or occasionally larger groups).TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)- I've reworded it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Much better. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've reworded it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was confused on this one, the quote you've added says he played it straight, he was a quirky villain, and the content in the article says he played it as a straight man, with quirks. I'm not sure where the deviation is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"He found some of the physical punishment his character endures and spontaneous additions of Russian dialogue he had to quickly learn difficult." – this is a bit difficult to parse.
"Moynahan did not read the script entirely" – I would either say "the entire script" or "the script in its entirety".
"Stahelski said: "look at [Clint Eastwood] in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" – safe to link The Good, the Bad and the Ugly per MOS:LINKQUOTE.
- The "Design" subsection has a fair amount of implicit and explicit repetition. Lee Marvin and Steve McQueen are mentioned twice, and Point Blank starring Marvin is mentioned separately. John Woo's style is mentioned separately from the style in The Killer which he directed, and so on.
"John's fight with Ms. Perkins was edited because they could not show him being as violent to a female character." – why not?
"Stahelski wanted the action to be an integral continuation of the story rather than just a set piece." – link set piece.
- Release
"Lionsgate announced John Wick would play in IMAX theaters, which was seen as a premium theatrical experience" – "seen as"?- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"considered a premium theatrical experience" is not much better. IMAX is literally a premium theatrical experience in the sense that it is a more expensive one. If "premium" is meant to denote "superior" here, a different word choice should be used.TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)- Changed to "superior" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"By October 2014, the box office was facing a downturn." – the box office? That should indicate that we're talking worldwide, but the IndieWire source specifies that it's about the US/Canada market.
- The "Context" subsection seems rather dubious in terms of relevance. It's not exactly astonishing that the overall box office sometimes underperforms and sometimes overperforms.
- It's a brief section establishing the context of what John Wick was released into, yes cinema takings ebb and flow but nearly 10 years removed it helps the reader understand John Wick's release environment and the kind of films it was released alongside.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- That seems like crafting a narrative to me. Do sources on John Wick present this narrative? TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- They don't talk about John Wick at all because it wasn't a blip on anyone's radar, Wick is only generally mentioned in retrospect once it turned outt o be a success and that noone expected it to do well until it did. I'm not trying to craft a narrative, the sources are generally industry professional analysis and it provided some additional context, especially since it's success was unexpected but still very modest and so there isn't a great deal of context that can be provided in the box office section. The only other organic links there are Ouija and Fury, two films that have since been completely forgotten and so don't provide much to the reader. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- That's kind of my point. I get that you are trying to establish context and are not consciously crafting a favourable narrative, but the choice of details to provide and the way in which they are presented creates a framing nonetheless, and in this case it is a fairly flattering one. That's a problem when it comes from Wikipedia rather than from our sources. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- They don't talk about John Wick at all because it wasn't a blip on anyone's radar, Wick is only generally mentioned in retrospect once it turned outt o be a success and that noone expected it to do well until it did. I'm not trying to craft a narrative, the sources are generally industry professional analysis and it provided some additional context, especially since it's success was unexpected but still very modest and so there isn't a great deal of context that can be provided in the box office section. The only other organic links there are Ouija and Fury, two films that have since been completely forgotten and so don't provide much to the reader. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- That seems like crafting a narrative to me. Do sources on John Wick present this narrative? TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- It's a brief section establishing the context of what John Wick was released into, yes cinema takings ebb and flow but nearly 10 years removed it helps the reader understand John Wick's release environment and the kind of films it was released alongside.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"The film attracted a mostly male audience, about 77% of which were over 25 years of age." – 77% of the male audience or 77% of the overall audience?- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"The film primarily drew a male audience, with approximately 77% of the viewers being aged over 25 years." resolves the ambiguity but creates the expectation that "77%" refers to the proportion of viewers who were male. Replacing "with" with "and" would solve this.TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Changed Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- New comment: "Outside the U.S. and Canada, John Wick is estimated to have grossing" – anacoluthon. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
New comment: "performing well in Germany ($3.7 million), France ($3.2 million), Australia ($2.8 million), Taiwan ($2.6 million), Russia ($2.59 million), the United Kingdom ($2.4 million), and Japan ($2.3 million), among others." – the cited sources[4][5] do not say that all of these were good performances. In fact, they don't say that any of them were—all we get in terms of qualitative judgments is about a couple of opening grosses.TompaDompa (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)"This made it the 114th-highest-grossing film outside of the U.S. and Canada." – really need to specify that this is about movies released in 2014.
"Cumulatively, John Wick earned an estimated worldwide gross of $86 million" – this is a rather clunky phrasing. "Cumulatively" is rather redundant, as is the combination of "earned" and "gross". This would be way better as e.g. "Worldwide, John Wick grossed an estimated $86 million". If you really want to emphasize that the worldwide gross is the sum of the gross in the US and Canada and the gross outside of the US and Canada, you could try "In total, John Wick grossed an estimated $86 million worldwide".
- Reception
"Critics were near unanimous in their praise for Reeves's performance" – that's a pretty strong statement. Do any of the sources say that critics were near unanimous?
New comment: "Critics, including Peter Travers and Stephanie Zacharek praised Reeves's performance, describing it as a return to form." – there is either one comma too many or one too few; "including Peter Travers and Stephanie Zacharek" could be enclosed by commas or the first comma could be removed.TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)"They noted that the choreography was inventive" – that's an opinion rather than a fact.
"cliche-filled" – cliché-filled.
- Post-release
"The home-media release was a success, being the second-best-selling home release of February behind Dracula Untold (2014), and the number-one rental during its release week." – that doesn't strike me as something I would describe as a success.- It was the best selling home release and second best rental? What do you consider a success? I've changed it regardless Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would be much more likely to consider something that does not need such restrictive qualifiers (calendar month, specific week) to be at or near the top to be a success. This is yet another example of something that comes across as superlative-chasing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- It was the best selling home release and second best rental? What do you consider a success? I've changed it regardless Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Why is there both a "Other media" subsection here and a "Sequels and spin-offs" section further below? It would seem much more logical to me to cover all of it under a "Franchise" heading or similar.- This is for non-film content relating to John Wick, the sequels is for film content relating to John Wick. It would be awkward to be constantly flipping back and forth between mentioning video games and sequels as they are released, plus comic books, any anything else. Other media would also include merchandise if there were anything notable for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Can't say I see why that would be a problem—putting everything under a "Franchise" heading would be a perfectly cromulent WP:Summary style solution with the John Wick franchise article—but okay. TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is for non-film content relating to John Wick, the sequels is for film content relating to John Wick. It would be awkward to be constantly flipping back and forth between mentioning video games and sequels as they are released, plus comic books, any anything else. Other media would also include merchandise if there were anything notable for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
"According to Ann C. Hall, John Wick is a postmodern epic hero in a contemporary epic universe." – should probably link Epic (genre) or Epic poetry here.
- Legacy
- "John Wick has been named by several publications and critics as one of the best action films ever made." – the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough for a statement like this. The first source is a top 50 list that doesn't even include the film (though it does the sequel). The second source is a top 101 that puts it at number 52. The third source is a top 36 that puts it at number 7. The fourth source is an unranked top 10. The fifth source is an (I think) unranked top 140 (and if it's meant to be read as ranked, it puts John Wick at number 16). The sixth source is a top 33 that puts it at number 32. The seventh source is an unranked list of five films that is explicitly restricted to comparatively-obscure ones (which makes me question what on Earth John Wick and Mad Max: Fury Road are doing there, but never mind). This just comes across as cherry-picking.
- The first reference had been changed by Empire, they've renamed it 50 best instead of the original 60 best link I used, I've marked it as dead and the archive shows the proper rankings. I've also added a metric tonne of additional references that back this up. There are literally high thousands if not tens of thousands of action films in existence, that all these reliable sources plus the ones I've added are naming it, by your own observation, in the top 52 action films ever made is sufficient backing for the comment which does not say "John Wick IS the best action film" or "John Wick IS one of the best action films", but that several publications and critics have named it such, it's not an extraordinary claim and would only be cherry picking if it was simultaneously appearing on lists of the worst action films ever made, and even if this isn't my favourite film in the series the discourse around it is not that it is a bad action film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Several publications have named it one of the best action films of the 21st century, and among the best films in Reeves's filmography." – in combination with the preceding sentence, this comes across as superlative-chasing.
- It's just segmenting them out, not superlative chasing, it would be inauthentic to use sources that say its the best action film since 2000 and claim they say best ever made. I can add additional references if you want but I don't feel it's necessary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- "one of the most financially and critically successful action film series" – that's a very dubious statement, and it fails verification to boot.
- I've lost a source somewhere here since I wrote it, but I've added an additional metric tonne of references for this statement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- "John Wick's success launched one of the most-successful action franchises ever made." – again very dubious and comes across as superlative-chasing.
- It's what the sources say and it's backed up by the existing sources plus sources used for the above statement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- "The mythology involved in the film's criminal underworld, such as a unique currency and strict rules, is also seen as contributing to the film's success." – rather redundant to "The mythology in John Wick was identified as a key aspect that differentiated it from other action movies, particularly the codes and rules that govern the criminals" in a previous section.
- I've trimmed it down to just mythology, the first is the contemporary reception, the second is the enduring part of its reception
"Like how John Wick was influenced by the history of action cinema, it is seen as an influence on many action films that followed, such as Atomic Blonde (2017), Guns Akimbo (2019), and Extraction (2020); and 2021 films Gunpowder Milkshake, Jolt, The Protégé, and Nobody—which was also written by Kolstad and produced by Leitch." – bordering on run-on sentence. It also relies on "was" as opposed to "were" to clarify that only Nobody was by Kolstad and Leitch, which is suboptimal.
"the characters pragmatic attitude" – missing apostrophe.
"MovieWeb wrote John's in-narrative status as a legendary character before the film begins was a "genius" decision that adds depth to the character and the film's universe while keeping him sympathetic through the loss of his wife and puppy." – this is a garden-path sentence due to the lack of "that" after "wrote" (did "MovieWeb [write] John's in-narrative status as a legendary character"?). Also, the stuff before "while" is one point and the stuff after it a separate one, but it's phrased as if the latter is part of the former—the in-narrative status as a legendary character does not keep him sympathetic.
- Sequels and spin-offs
- "John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum (2019), which nearly quadrupled the box-office take of John Wick and became one of the highest-grossing films of 2019." – it was number 14 in the US and Canada[6][7] and number 27 worldwide[8][9].
- I can add "In the US and Canada"? There were 792 films released in 2019 in North America alone so what is the cut off for highest-grossing? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know that an exact cut-off can be pre-specified, but I certainly wouldn't describe number 14 or number 27 as one of the highest-grossing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like OR to me, if the source calls it one of the year's highest-grossing films why are we inveting goalposts for it? There is also this source from Forbes which similarly points out its a success. I can reword it to "one of the year's most financially successful films" or something but in terms of sequel on sequel success, profitability, and being even the 27th highest grossing film in a year filled with comic book movies and big budget sequels, I don't think its success is unsupported. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know that an exact cut-off can be pre-specified, but I certainly wouldn't describe number 14 or number 27 as one of the highest-grossing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can add "In the US and Canada"? There were 792 films released in 2019 in North America alone so what is the cut off for highest-grossing? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- New comment: "earning critical praise" – the neutral phrasing is that someone or something receives praise, as "earn" also means "deserve". TompaDompa (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- Summary
I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose at this point. This is based on overall prose quality, neutrality (both in terms of the general tone and specific issues such as the ones I have outlined above), and the sourcing issues I discovered when double-checking a few things that seemed questionable to me. That last point in particular gives me pause, because I did not conduct anything approaching a thorough spot-check, so the fact that I found what I consider to be serious sourcing problems suggests to me there are likely more such problems that are as-yet undiscovered. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's normal to let me address your comments before throwing an oppose in there. Seems unnecessary. As per the last point giving you so much concern, it's sourced, what can I say. I will need time to deal with the rest. Also I only use reliable sources, I have thrown away good references containing information I needed because the source wasn't reliable, the sources are not questionable and your concerns about Screen Rant have been addressed in my previous FAC reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Just a note that it's common for reviewers to oppose straight off, if they consider the issues serious enough. Opposes can always be struck, or even turn into support, as the issues get resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I thought a fair amount about whether to outright oppose or not. On the one hand, I would certainly be happy to change to support if the article is improved such that I feel comfortable doing so (hence my "at this point"). On the other, I wanted to be upfront about this not being a case where "it's close, fix a few issues and I'll support" and make sure to, well, manage expectations I suppose. I would hate for us to get stuck in a WP:FIXLOOP. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I will, of course, give this a second look. Due to circumstances outside of Wikipedia, it will likely be an additional few days before I have the time do it justice. TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have started. I have added strikethrough markup to resolved issues, responded to some of your replies, added a couple of new comments, and left a fair number issues I will need to take a closer look at later without further action. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- I will, of course, give this a second look. Due to circumstances outside of Wikipedia, it will likely be an additional few days before I have the time do it justice. TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's normal to let me address your comments before throwing an oppose in there. Seems unnecessary. As per the last point giving you so much concern, it's sourced, what can I say. I will need time to deal with the rest. Also I only use reliable sources, I have thrown away good references containing information I needed because the source wasn't reliable, the sources are not questionable and your concerns about Screen Rant have been addressed in my previous FAC reviews. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Support from zmbro
- The article has some problems with reference ordering (i.e. "Test audiences were supportive of John avenging his puppy.[139][71][30]") but that's not an issue to. Happy to offer my support to speed things up. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)