# Talk:Cisco Pike

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cisco Pike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this Cavie78 (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Lead

"reviews and to a box office failure" -> "reviews and was a box office failure"
Possibly wikilink box office failure to Box-office bomb
"DVD format" Is format necessary?
"Cisco Pike was unavailable on home media until its re-release on DVD format in 2006" Might be better to reword this so it's obvious that the film was never given an official release until 2006 - unavailable sounds like it went out of print
Done. Except for the wikilink, as explained below.--GDuwenTell me! 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Plot

Wikilink pawn to Pawnbroker
"The shop owner (Roscoe Lee Browne) refuses Cisco's guitar" Suggest rewording to "The pawnshop owner (Roscoe Lee Browne) refuses the guitar"
Wikilink demo to Demo (music)
Wikilink marijuana
Wikilink US$ to United States dollar
"gives him fifty-nine hours to sell the marijuana and tells Cisco he may keep any excess money and in return agrees to alter his most recent arrest paperwork if it goes to trial" Suggest rewording to "gives him fifty-nine hours to sell the marijuana and in return tells Cisco he may keep any excess money and that he will alter his most recent arrest paperwork if the case goes to trial"
"and refuses to work with Holland any further. Cisco returns home to work on his demos" Suggest rewording to "and refuses to work with Holland any further, returning home to work on his demos"
"with whom he has submitted some demos" This sounds like Cisco collaborated with Rex. Do you mean he gave Rex his demo to listen to? How does he "reject" the demo? Does he own a record label or is Sisko trying to get Rex to record/play his songs? Does Rex just not like the songs?
"the sale of the drug" -> "sale of the drugs"
"at the studio" What studio?
"Being impacted by the state of Jesse's drug addiction" What drug addiction? I don't think "Being impacted" is the right phrase here.
"Holland enters Cisco's house and stays with Sue" "Stays with" makes it sound like he's a guest?
"responding to the call of Jesse's body" -> " responding to the call about Jesse's body"
I did the changes you requested to the text. I'm not really convinced to wikilink those articles. As per MoS: Overlinking and underlinking, you want to avoid linking common words. Words like marijuana, pawnbroker, box office failure and US dollar are common knowledge to at least English-speaking readers. I consider "demo" acceptable to link, since it is something proper to music.
About Rex, well, he is a friend of Cisco's, as well as a singer. They know each other from Cisco's past days of fame. Cisco gave him some of his demos at some point. It is apparent on the recording studio (as Doug Sahm also often did in real life) that Rex also produces his own records. Cisco asks him about the demos, but Rex hands them back. He quickly blows off anything related to Cisco's music, and  he is obviously more interested on the dope. It is not really specified if Cisco gave Rex the demos to convince him to produce Cisco, or for Rex to hand it to his manager or record company.--GDuwenTell me! 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Background and production

"Releases of the style that met a good audience reception in 1970" -> "Releases in this style which met a good audience reception in 1970"
"Norton had worked as a director on television commercials, rock-and-roll shorts, and other short films for UCLA's film school" This sounds like his previous work all formed part of his studies at UCLA? If it was just the short films, make it clear and also make it clear they formed part of his course - "for" sounds like they paid him to make them
"Towne added the character of the corrupt police officer who forces Cisco Pike back into the drug world. The main character's girlfriend was further expanded" -> "Towne added the character of the corrupt police officer who forces Cisco Pike back into the drug world and further expanded the role of Cisco's girlfriend"
"Norton initially opposed the casting of Karen Black but relented because the studio imposed it as a condition for accepting the production of the film" -> "Norton initially opposed the casting of Karen Black but relented when the studio imposed it as a condition for producing the film"
"which was at the time still unreleased" At what time?
"After his debut show at the Los Angeles nightclub The Troubadour" -> "After his debut performance as a singer at the Los Angeles nightclub The Troubadour"
"who invited him to audition for his film debut on a leading role on the production of Two-Lane Blacktop" Don't understand what you mean here - says "audition for his film debut", but then makes it sound like he'd be given a role as a producer
"who was signed by Columbia Records" -> "who was signed to Columbia Records"
"arrived to the appointment intoxicated and left" There must be more to this. Did he perform the audtion? Did he leave because he realised he wouldn't get the part as he was drunk?
"His peers" Who? His friends?
"His peers encouraged him to reject the role and to take acting lessons instead. He accepted the part," -> "His peers encouraged him to reject the role and to take acting lessons instead, but he accepted the part,"
"Hackman accepted" -> Gene Hackman accepted" You haven't mentioned him before in this section
When was the title changed to Cisco Pike from Silver Tongued Devil and why?
"was kept to by filming in" -> "was kept to by shooting in" (to avoid repetition of filming so close together)
"which is one of the smallest Columbia Pictures had used to date" To date? 2020? If you mean at the time, suggest rewording to "which was one of the smallest Columbia Pictures had used at that point"
"played in (his) mind" -> "played in [his] mind" assuming you are substituting my from the quote
Changes made. By "his peers" I referred to friends, as well as other people he dealt with at the time. Some of them were acquaintances.
About the title changes, I could not find any mention on the bibliography as to why. As many films, it had working titles that were changed as filming progressed. Sometimes there's a reason (the review of Life magazine cited on the release section suggests it was maybe because of the negative performances of similar films at the time that dealt with "junkie life"), sometimes there's no reason other than the producers, or director, or whoever deciding a new title is more appealing. Since I found no specific reason, I just mentioned it was renamed twice--GDuwenTell me! 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As for the audition were he left, there was not much to it. He didn't even remember why he was supposed to go to Columbia. Stoned out of his mind, he found out it was an audition for the role and he just walked off. Clearly he did not care.--GDuwenTell me! 20:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Release and reception

"Its initial reviews" -> "Initial reviews"
"War on drugs" -> "war on drugs" or "War on Drugs"
"described the approach of the movie studios and their depictions of drug issues in the United States as wrong" This could be worded better. You talk about Cisco Pike, then talk about movie studios in general before going back to Cisco Pike. Were Life attacking New Hollywood movies, specific movies of Cisco Pike in particular?
"The publication said due" -> "The publication said that due"
"three changes of title to damage control" Why? By trying to obscure the role of drugs in the movie?
"had in comparison to dramatic ones" -> "had in comparison with dramatic ones"
"New York Times" -> "The New York Times"
"never officially released in VHS though" -> "never officially released on VHS, though"
"Los Angeles Times favored it, accentuating its place in history" "favored it" sounds odd - do you mean the LA Times gave it a favourable review? The same goes for "accentuating its place in history" What do you mean by that?
"The critic" Name?
The Life magazine article mentions Cisco Pike, while also discussing "junkie" films of the time. I added the information to provide a context as to why the movie probably flopped. More than attacking, they felt that the studios' strategy to push dramatic movies with junkies as heroes was failing. On the contrast, they suggested that the movies that treated them as laughingstock were the ones really enjoying success, probably due to the general mood of the viewers at the time with the crisis and all. For people who are not really into the culture of the 70s, it is worth explaining. There was a recession going at the time, plus the oil crisis and the Vietnam war. Many considered movies like Cisco Pike or The Panic in Needle Park (with Al Pacino, about the downward spiral of a junkie couple) as too depressing to watch as compared to lighthearted comedies making fun of the drug world.--GDuwenTell me! 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
About the LA Times review, the whole piece spins around the movie being a time capsule of early 70s LA. By "Favored it", I just tried to avoid the generic "delivered a favorable review".--GDuwenTell me! 20:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Legacy

I know you have a wikilink, but I think you need to say that Cinefamily is a West Hollywood cinema
"hosted a month-long cycle that screened Kristofferson's movies" -> "hosted a month-long screening of Kristofferson's movies"
"The theater hosted" -> "The theater held" (avoid repetition of hosted) Also, you should make it clear this was before/after Cisco Pike
"main character's enemy" -> "the main character's enemy"
"Cisco Pike appears in numbers one to five and inhabits the fictional universe Earth-616" Are you still talking about the comic?
Done. I also clarified that of Cinefamily and the comic.--GDuwenTell me! 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Soundtrack

"which is sung by Doug Sahm on his cameo" -> "which is sung by Doug Sahm during his cameo"
Done.--GDuwenTell me! 20:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
General

You should add a Cast section
I didn't feel it was necessary to add a cast section as per point three of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Cast. The body of the article goes to describe the characters, and mentions how the main actors were selected or brought to the film.--GDuwenTell me! 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Images'

Ok, but the licence for the soundtrack needs looking at. For an example, see [[1]]
Done.--GDuwenTell me! 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources

The sources themselves seem ok, but there are several sections where it's not clear which cite you're using e.g. the second paragraph in reception. Check through the article and make sure cites are clear
Yea, that particular citation refers to three reviews from different publications. FilmFacts was a journal published by the Division of Cinema of the University of Southern California. It basically provided a short summary of a movie, and mirrored the reviews of major publications. I was unable to find the original reviews on each of the publications, so I left Filmfacts for Washington Post, Variety and Newsday.--GDuwenTell me! 20:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
That's quite a lot to do, but I'll put the article on hold and allow time for my concerns to be addressed Cavie78 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cavie78: Thanks for taking up the review of my article, your work is much appreciated. I got down to reword or replace those sentences you pointed out. As for other specific issues, we should discuss on how to improve them. Hope my responses above covered them.--GDuwenTell me! 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@GDuwen: Thanks for making the changes so far.
Regarding the cast section, point 3 of the MOS says "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, ensuring that these lists do not include any forced line breaks per accessibility concerns; or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section" You don't have either of those things in this article.
I'm not precious about the wikilinks, but I think the things I suggested deserve wikilinks personally.
In the plot section you say " meets groupie Merna (Viva) at the studio" You should either say "back at the studio", if Cisco left to meet Rex's manager. If he meets Rex's manager at the studio, there's no need to say "at the studio" here as you say "leaves with her" so we can assume they're at the studio.
Rather than "Holland enters uninvited Cisco's house" you should say "Holland enters Cisco's house uninvited"
"Norton had worked as a direct" -> "Norton had worked as a director"
"which was at the time of the production of Cisco Pike still unreleased" -> "which was unreleased at the time of Cisco Pike's production"
I think you need to include the Filmfacts source at the end of each sentence you're using it for in Release and Reception as you're using direct quotes from the review.
The link in the 1972 Director's Guild of America is odd - it goes to a search in Google Books, rather than the publication itself. If you can't directly link to the publication, I'd say you're better removing it as the cite already includes enough information for people to find the source.

@Cavie78: Well, I guess we can reach an agreement with the wikilinks. I made some changes, and did link marijuana, but my I did not include pawn broker (my only problem with it is that the name of the actor right next to it is also linked, and it doesn't convince me aesthetically). Other than that, rather than linking the currency, I linked "heroin" and "arrest paperwork" (to criminal record, the re-direct of rap sheet).
I want to further discuss that with a possible "Casting" section. I think I just didn't express myself clearly about why I kept it out of the article. The point I wanted to make by citing the MoS, (and that particular section of it) was the line  "A 'Cast' section may be maintained". I chose while writing this article to merge the production with a "background" section. My reason to go about it is that there is not too much information available on the making of this particular film. You see, we are dealing with a movie that had a short release, wound up on the vaults of the studio, and no one cared for a re-release of it until 2006. With the amount of information I was able to put together, I decided the proper thing to do was to include it within the body of the "background and production" section, with the information as to how or why the main actors were casted (Kristofferson, Hackman and Black).
In normal circumstances, as I did with other articles, I would use detailed bullet points with the formula: Character name + wikilink to actor/actress + short description of the character + details as to how they got casted. For Cisco Pike, I went without a casting section. A stub article calls for simple bullet points with character name/performer, but a more detailed article requires the more detailed casting section. Creating this more detailed list would mean I have to gut the "Background and production" section, by moving the info to another section, resulting then in two separated small sections. Facing this possibility, I decided to rather have a paragraph on the casting of actors to expand the existing section. I considered it to be more appropriate to have a better flowing prose, more comfortable to read without the annoyance of the titles in between and smaller sections of text spread all over the place. Thus, I also thought it to be aesthetically preferable. In short, I do like having a separate cast section, but for this particular article I didn't see it as a benefit.--GDuwenTell me! 10:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for making the rest of the changes. As far as a cast section goes, consider these Featured Articles: Whisky Galore! (1949 film) (promoted a few months ago), The Shawshank Redemption and Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) (both have casting sections, but still include a brief Cast section) Cavie78 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cavie78: Following that format, I just went on to remove the wikilink to the actors on the plot. I added the "Cast" section, and linked the actors there. So, we can now consider the issue settled I guess.--GDuwenTell me! 09:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @GDuwen:. Happy to promote. Congratulations and thanks again for your hard work on this article Cavie78 (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Cavie78: And thanks for the good work, and taking the time for reviewing!--GDuwenTell me! 10:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)