Talk:Manchester by the Sea (film)/GA1

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

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not missing this opportunity! Initial comments should be up within a week or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with the infobox and lead:

Infobox

• File:Manchester by the Sea.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• Per WP:INFOBOXREF, you don't need to cite details here that are already sourced within article text

Lead

• It's repetitive to start multiple consecutive sentences with "It" or "the film" (even if one is possessive)
• You should note when filming took place (months are fine)
• No mention of BAFTAs? Those are the UK equivalent of Oscars!

I'll get to plot and probably cast in my next batch. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Plot

• "The story takes place in the present, while the narrative includes flashbacks that inform the viewer of significant events from the past and the characters' motivations" is rather wordy. How about something like "The story takes place in the present and features various flashbacks from the past" instead given how this often goes back-and-forth between past and present?
• Is "awkward" in "during an awkward meal" really neutral? Using "uncomfortable" seems like a safer bet when the three definitely aren't at ease with one another.
• "doesn't" from "he doesn't deserve it" should be "does not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
• "boy" within "adopt Patrick so the boy can remain in Manchester" seems somewhat misleading when Patrick is 16, so "teen" or "teenager" seems more suitable if looking for another pronoun

Cast

• A completely unsourced section. I know that Affleck, Williams, and Hedges are common knowledge for this movie, but WP:FILMCAST doesn't make exemptions for cast listings, especially uncredited/small roles. If you don't feel like providing individual citations for each role, then you could get one reference containing the cast and attaching it to something along the lines of "Credits adapted from _______". See La La Land (film) and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for good examples.

More to come later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Themes

• "one critic noted"..... a specific name would be nice

Development and production

• Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't mention any play Matt Damon had worked with Kenneth Lonergan on, and just Margaret seems to be worth mentioning anyway when only that has a specified name and thus something solid to work with. It also doesn't give a specific date for when pre-production begins and "Monday" is an ambiguous description as it can refer to more than one day within the month (each month has 4 or 5 days of each week), and you can't just presume people will automatically know which one you're referring to, especially when no day of the week is given for its September 6, 2014 announcement.
• "in the role of Lee Chandler" should probably be "in the lead role" since his character name wasn't known at the time of this announcement
• "joined the cast as Lee Chandler's wife" again, Lee's name hadn't yet been confirmed
• Only Josh Godfrey is listed as an executive producer along with Lauren Beck, not the other names you've given.
• "Pritzker was no longer attached to produce" seems redundant
• Super short paragraphs with only a sentence or two are bad practice as they make the prose look choppy.

Filming

• Since this subsection is so short, you could merge delete the heading and have this all contained within one parent section title. See my previous comment on really short paragraphs. I would recommend having this subsection's content with all of the preceding paragraph.
• With no day of week given for March 24, 2015 (date of article creation), you again can't presume people will know right away which "Monday" it means even if they did remember what day of the week March 24th was back then, but I did find this giving a more explicit mention of March 23rd which can be used

That's all I can give for now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting more out sooner. Time to resume!

Release

• No mention of January 23, 2016 found here
• "of which Lionsgate owns 45%" is irrelevant detail that should be deleted
• This doesn't say September 2, and once more don't just presume the general public will automatically know what you mean when it only gives a day of the week per reasons previously stated
• No September 8, 2016 or even a month is included, and No October 1st at all
• Faulty URL that doesn't show anything
• I don't see February 7, 2017 anywhere
• Every sentence of the third paragraph starts with "The film", which gets repetitive

Reception

Box office

• Contrary to what this subsection placement suggests, movie earnings aren't really connected to reviews. I'd move all of this content into "Release" and merge into one paragraph instead of having two ridiculously short paragraphs.
• Budget was $9M, not $8.5M
• "The film began a limited release on November 18, 2016, and grossed $256,498 from four theaters for the weekend, making for a per-theater average of $64,125" should be placed before the implemented Box Office Mojo citation.

I should get to "Critical response" in my next batch. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Critical response

• "particular praise reserved for Lonergan's screenplay and direction, as well as the performances of Affleck, Williams and Hedges" should probably have its own citation to avoid WP:SYNTH
• That "must-see film" bit from Rolling Stone seems more appropriate for the second or third paragraph
• I'd specify that it was Metacritic who counted this "among the best films of 2016"
• "there’s" from "there’s not much higher praise than that" should be "there's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
• Let's add more detail to the Variety review; it seems somewhat bare at the moment
• More MOS:QUOTEMARKS issues with "year’s" from "ranks with the year’s very best films" and "doesn’t" from "emotionally ragged Manchester doesn’t just ask for time"
• "Zoller called the scene"..... no, Seitz is the last name of Matt Zoller Seitz
• Affleck's own comments don't belong here; better for "Development and production" if anywhere

Accolades

• Again, avoid super short paragraphs
• I know there's a separate List of accolades received by Manchester by the Sea (film) article, but you can definitely add more here. The Satellite Awards and Screen Actors Guild Awards are worth noting as well.

"Music" section will follow when I get the chance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Music

• You don't need to use the exact same citation multiple times in a row within a paragraph per WP:OVERCITE; just use one instance of that ref at the end of all the text that it supports
• I don't find the exact word "emoted" anywhere here in the way your quote form suggests; don't fabricate quotes
• Barber Rozema" within "Jacoba Barber Rozema" should be hyphenated
• Jezebel (website) doesn't have an "a" in its spelling
• "has been overused so much in pop entertainment that when it turns up, it's distracting"..... he uses the word popular, not just "pop"
• "Academy’s" from "While I accept the Academy’s decision" should be "Academy's" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS

Soundtrack

• See above comments on WP:OVERCITE

References

• See MOS:QUOTEMARKS for curly quotation marks (frowned upon) vs. straight quotation marks (what should be used)
• Don't italicize British Board of Film Classification, Box Office Mojo, Toronto International Film Festival, New York Film Festival, BFI London Film Festival, Amazon.com, CNET, Metacritic, or RogerEbert.com
• "hollywoodreporter.com" should read The Hollywood Reporter
• "The" is part of the title for The Boston Globe
• "thewrap.com" → TheWrap
• "gloucestertimes.com" is supposed to read as Gloucester Daily Times
• "salemnews.com" → The Salem News
• "Indiewire.com" should read IndieWire without italics
• "LA Times" → Los Angeles Times, and italicize that
• "washingtonpost.com" is supposed to be The Washington Post with italics
• Italicize The Hollywood Reporter as well as Variety (magazine)
• Not sure if "The Film Stage" or "Film Music" should be italicized
• this link isn't working

Overall

• Prose: Super short paragraphs/sections are an issue, also lead needs a bit more detail to summarize all key points, and overall word quality as well as MOS could be improved in certain areas
• Referencing: Malformatted references, lots of content not adequately supported by given citations (including one entirely unsourced section), and a dead link
• Coverage: Awards section could be expanded
• Neutrality: One possible instance of bias
• Stability: Nothing of concern
• Media: All good here
• Verdict: While I do love this movie and would love to see it become GA at some point, it simply isn't ready for that, so I unfortunately must fail without putting on hold as there are currently too many issues. Best regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

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