# Talk:Alice, Sweet Alice

This article contains [File:Brooke_Shields_Cannes.jpg] from 1998. It has nothing to do with this film, other than its subject, who had appeared in this film many years earlier. What is the rationale for keeping it with this article?

Is this movie in the public domain? MightyArms (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alice, Sweet Alice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Drown Soda (talk · contribs) 04:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Drown Soda:, this was one of the first old horror films that I ever watched. It will be very interesting to read and review this article. My review will take a few days due to the length of the article. Jon698 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I did not find any MoS, grammar, or other errors.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
I conducted a review of the references starting with Reference 5 in the lede which sources the original title Communion. Reference 14 does cover his softcore adult film debut and 15 covers the obscenity charges, excommunication, and anti-Catholic bent in Alice. References 22 and 23 contain the text that is being quoted. Some major information is sourced using an audio commentary, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of it. Reference 31 contains the quote that it is sourcing, that he was an architect, and the inspiration for Mrs. Tredoni. Richard K. Rosenberg being a producer and his career is properly sourced by References 2 and 41.  I am stopping in the Casting section for now, but will continue my reference checks soon.  There is a problem with Reference 13 as the page does not mention Sole being an ex-Catholic. It does properly source John Kenneth Muir's quotes later on and his comparison to Seven.  Reference [44] is accurate to Brooke Shields' casting. Reference 52 covers the short height of the actress and how it allowed her to play a child. Reference 42 covers Linda Miller and Niles McMaster's casting. Reference 60 covers Lillian Roth's casting. Reference 61 does list James Farentino. References 66 and 3 list the budget at $1 million. [66] also covers the filming locations in Paterson and Newark. I made a minor edit in the Release section to remove "premiered" since neither [87] nor [1] make that claim. It would be good to look into that further for a possible FA nomination. Reference 65 does mention Paramount and Universal and the numbers for the Paterson premiere's attendance. Reference 95 gives the release date for the UK. Reference [103] does feature the quote it sources. Reference 106 does cover the copyright issues. Reference 84 features the Anchor Bay release. The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores are included. Reference 97 does describe good reviews from the UK. Leonard Maltin, Vincent Canby, and The Boston's Globe's reviews are all properly sourced and copied. I wish I could read Ebert's review, but the Sun Times is annoying with its archive. All of the accolades are properly sourced after I removed a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources source (FilmAffinity).
@Jon698: You are correct that this source does not mention Sole being an ex-Catholic. I have added a citation from the Edwards book (p. 33) which does confirm that Sole considers himself an ex-Catholic. This is also noted in in the interview short First Communion: Alfred Sole Remembers Alice, Sweet Alice cited from the Arrow Blu-ray in which Sole does describe himself as an ex-Catholic, but for now I am leaving the Edwards book source solely as I believe this suffices. Please let me know if you have other concerns about this. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Covers the film's plot, development, themes, release, and reception.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
I see no neutrality problems.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
No major editors beside Drown Soda and myself.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
There are many good images in the article due to the film's weird copyright history.
Overall: 
Pass/Fail:  I have no problems with the articles after making my edits and conducting a review of the references.

@Drown Soda: I have an issue with Reference 13 as detailed above. Jon698 (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
@Drown Soda: Congratulations on the good work you did. Jon698 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)