# Talk:Kill the Irishman

I just watched a torrented version of this, and although the filename was 'Kill the Irishman', the title on the fim's opening and closing credits was 'Bulletproof Gangster'. 
Checked IMDB. Here's link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1416801/releaseinfo#akas
So added alternative title to main article's info box.

Fun tidbit... Val Kilmer attended the 5/27/2009 Red Wings vs. Blackhawks game wearing a Red Wings hat.  Saw him in the front row on the CBC broadcast.  (I'm only on this page because I saw him and wanted to find out what he was doing in town.)  Seadragon (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
MovieSet has collection of behind the scenes interviews from the Irishman set plus an archive of information from the film and still photos at: http://www.movieset.com/theirishman/ - This info can be used to update this entry using original quotes from interviews with Walken, Kilmer, Stevenson plus technical crew. --Cinema-enthusiast (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kill the Irishman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 19:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to quickfail this article. The plot section has a completely valid cleanup tag, in that it's sitting at over 1300 words. The preferred range, per WP:FILMPLOT, is 400-700. There are extensive bare URLs in the references; very few are actually filled out. No box office section, which is necessary for theatrically released films. The infobox should not contain DVD sales, just theatrical gross. Lots of improper grammar and phrasing throughout, with some puffery thrown in the mix.
The content is more in-depth than I would've expected, and in terms of coverage, you're golden. However, this is unfortunately far away from meeting the necessary "well-written" criteria, and is in need of a lot of copy-editing and cleanup before it's ready for GA. I'd highly suggest going through, cutting the plot section in half, then taking this to the Guild of Copy Editors to clean it up. Also, try to trim some of the extraneous trivia (the "Development" section in particular is full of info that could be said in a few sentences).
Sorry, Metalfire. Best of luck for your next nomination! I'd be happy to review it again if/when you do the necessary editing. Sock (tock talk) 19:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kill the Irishman/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 
See other comment 3 below
C. No original research: 
See other comments 1 and 4 below
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
#### Criterion 1
Kill the Irishman was in development hell for over a decade The term "development hell" is jargon and should be taken out of the lead as it isn't easily understood. It also isn't the term used in the source cited so it may be original research

Cleanup tag at the top is definitely still valid. The lead should cover the reception of the film as well. See WP:LEAD.
This still needs to be addressed.
Still needs fixing
Has been fixed Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Danny refuses and Licavoli places a contract on Danny’s life. What does "place a contract" mean? Not everyone will be familiar with that term

Reid said this galvanized him into action, and it was a common occurrence in Hollywood. This is awkwardly worded in context. You may want to think about rewriting it.

Tommy Reid did extensive research "extensive" here feels a bit out of line with WP:PEACOCK

Tommy Reid began to accept the possibility that his movie would never be made, This clause is very strange. It may be worth rewriting that whole section as well.

"bankable" director What does that mean? You should explain that in the article.

incidences is this supposed to be incidents or coincidences?

A number of incidences "a number of" lacks precision and should be reworded to reflect the number of examples you have.

This has been noted by many critics This term lacks precision. Let readers come to their own conclusions as to whether the number of critics constitute "many". See WP:WEASEL.

Reid said the FBI, they wanted to make sure the mafia was not being glorified. Is this a quotation? Either way it's awkwardly worded and should be reworded.

The background research section also feels poorly worded as half of it is simply "she said" sentences.

Many of the dates given... This paragraph should be above the section heading on Alex Birns as it has nothing to do with Alex Birns' death.

Home Video should be a subsection of Release and Reception.


#### Other Comments
 In reality, although many rumors surround Art Sneperger’s death, it remains unsolved. Some investigators speculated that radio interference caused the bomb to detonate early; others speculated that Greene killed him after learning he was going to become an informant. Source cited does not back this up. See WP:OR.
This sentence is still in the article without a source.
This sentence is now sourced, but by a mafia wiki (that doesn't cite any sources) which is an unreliable source per  the reliable sources policy: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media [like]...open wikis...are largely not acceptable.
Sources are good, but the inside St. Louis source doesn't say Greene was never charged, just that he was never proven to have done it. I changed the wording from "never charged with Sneperger's murder" to "never proved to have killed Sneperger." If you find a source that says Greene wasn't charged, you can change it back, but I'll list it as a GA with the wording change I made. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Keith (Jones) is killed  After the first time, you don't need to put the actor's names in parentheses.
Oh no! I think you misunderstood me here. The general style I tend to see is "...Character (Actor)..." at first mention, and every mention afterwards is just "...character...". So what I meant here is that you were following the style of only putting the actor's name at first mention, but then at this line, you had the actor's name again. It's fine as it is right now, you don't have to go in and change them all.

Stevenson stated that “it looks like a $30 million movie”, “which is a testament to everybody involved”. I'm not sure why a primary source is being used here, particularly since they would have a bias when talking about how the film looks. See WP:WPNOTRS. An ellipsis should be used instead of a comma, but that part is optional.

Although the film was generally well received, its box office performance was disappointing. The source doesn't say it's disappointing. I'm assuming this is original research or non-neutral point of view and should probably be removed unless a source describes it as disappointing.
This was revised to state Although the film was generally well received, it was unsuccessful at the box office. The source however still doesn't say either. While it may seem to you and I that the box office result was unsuccessful, if a verifiable and reliable source doesn't say that, it is original research and can't be included.
While I feel bad for harping on this one sentence, I think it's important to improve the article. While removing the "unsuccessful" part, it still contains the "generally well received" which is also kind of weasel-y. I think if it were properly attributed, like with the rotten tomatoes score or metacritic rating, it would be more acceptable (I think metacritic described it as "mixed to average"). But the source cited doesn't justify the "generally well received" description.
Good Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(Optional) The paragraph starting with Licavoli is made the Don of Cleveland; isn't very compellingly written. It is very subject-verb, subject-verb. I recommend rewriting it so it's a little more compelling.
This might have been changed a while ago and I just overlooked it, but it's good now Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
(Optional) While the GA Criteria don't require it, the plot section doesn't cite any sources, which is important as it may be original research.
Unfortunately, the revision to this needs work and is actually now a requirement. The problem is that the sources you cited are about the factual life of Danny Greene, not the plot of the movie. So the sources tell me that these are things that factually happened in the life of Danny Greene but not necessarily that they are factual things that happened in the movie. If this were an article about Danny Greene, the sources would be fine, but since this is an article about a movie about Greene, the sources need to be about the movie.
This seems to have been corrected though I'll need to look through the sources a bit more.
5. Added 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I was giving the article a once over before passing it and noticed that the still of the car exploding did not have a fair use rationale for "respect for commercial opportunities". It was an easy enough fix, so I added one, but in the future you need to remember that non-free content need to fulfill all the criteria for use and you need to articulate that on the file page. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


### Results
On Hold for 10 days and may be extended depending on progress. To be quite honest, I feel like this article needs a good amount of work before I'm willing to promote it to GA status, which is partly why I gave 10 days instead of the usual 7. I think it can be done if the work is put into it. A lot of attention needs to be paid to WP:OR to make sure that sources actually support the information cited as there were a number of instances where statements weren't backed up by the sources provided. Feel free to ask me any questions or for clarification. Happy Editing! Wugapodes (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


#### Results after First Revision
Still On Hold A lot of progress has been made, and most of the criterion 1 concerns have been fixed. The lead still needs to be rewritten to cover the reception of the film and other important aspects of the article. Most importantly, however, is the sourcing. The two examples I mentioned above are still in the article without a change of source, and the sources that were added to the Plot section are about Greene's biography not the plot of the movie. Wugapodes (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


#### Results after Second Revision
Still On Hold The lead still needs to be rewritten to include a summary of the release and reception of the film so that the cleanup tag can be removed. The two other aspects still have some problems that I covered.


#### Results after Third Revision
Pass I think this version passes the GA bar, however I think the next thing to do in improving the article is similar to what the last reviewer said, you should take it to the Guild of Copy Editors to really tighten up the prose as the suggestions I made were the bare minimum to make it clear and concise per the GA criteria, and there is a lot more that can be done. A general note is to be wary of unreliable sources, puffery, and original research which came up a lot in this review. With movies and mobsters, all of those can easily become big problems and can cause it to be delisted. Now don't take this as a reason to stop improving the article, there's still a lot of room to work. The article's come very far, so keep up the hard work! Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


### GA status clarification
Hi Wugapodes, you said that the article has passed the GA criteria (but can still do with improving), but I have just received a message on my talk page saying the article has failed to meet the criteria. Is this a mistake? or have you reverted your decision?. Thanks.
Metal121, April 03, 2015. 20:25 (GMT).

That is weird...I think it might have something to do with the previous review. I'll ask around to see how to fix that. Wugapodes (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Metal121: I asked Dom497 and he thinks it is because of the {{GA}} and {{FailedGA}} both on the page, and that {{Article history}} should have been used. I've fixed the problem. Wugapodes (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, just making a note (since this is a good article) that I made some minor revisions to plot.  It was pretty good so I tried not to change it too much, but addressed the following primarily:

Some copyedit nits (missing word; characters alternately called by first and last names instead of one name consistently through the summary; etc.
Minor corrections - for example, the cross Mrs. O'Keefe gives Danny isn't a crucifix, it's a Celtic cross - there is a difference especially if you're Irish Catholic
Some of the legal terms used were a little wonky - for example, "Federal police" is never used, it would be "Federal agents"; Manditski isn't just a cop, he's a detective which denotes a high ranking cop
A couple of the plot points needed expansion - the plot is fairly complicated as is often the case with Mafia movies especially where, as here, they try to stay close to real life events
Hope this is helpful, I am glad this is a GA since I think the movie got unfairly buried. Everybody I know in Cleveland liked it - many of us who grew up in the 70s remember the real life events very well :) TheBlinkster (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I put the plot summary on a diet because I noticed a previous GA reviewer complained about its being over 700 words.  My personal opinion is that the length of a plot summary is a debatable topic because depending on what's going on in the movie, they can be less than 400 or more than 700, and WP:FILMPLOT notes that if a plot is complicated it can go longer. However, I am also aware that some editors just hate long plot summaries period, and it's generally easier to just cut your writing than argue with somebody about why it shouldn't be cut.  Therefore, my revised version is now on the page measured with my cut-and-paste word counter to be 696 words, so you should be OK with respect to any length limits.  Best regards, TheBlinkster (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I edited my comment above because I see the article already passed GA. My bad, I misread the first time. Good job getting this to GA. TheBlinkster (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kill the Irishman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i07c80a70350aca72ada4bdb1c08c9612
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kill the Irishman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325034141/http://www.slickdevilmoviehouse.com/Interviews/Jonathan%20Hensleigh/index.htm to http://www.slickdevilmoviehouse.com/Interviews/Jonathan%20Hensleigh/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213161414/http://www.ray-stevenson.com/component/content/article/46-irishman/112-kill-the-irishman-ny-premiere to http://www.ray-stevenson.com/component/content/article/46-irishman/112-kill-the-irishman-ny-premiere
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


### Kill the Irishman