# Talk:Serpico

The plot line says: "Chief Sidney Green fears Serpico may have been shot by a cop."

In the first scene, the chief is clearly upset and concerned about Serpico's safety right after the shooting when he assigns a 24-hour guard and based on his demeanor.  There would be good reason for the chief to be concerned a cop shot him--based on the rest of the film.  But he never says anything directly to indicate exactly who or why Serpico was shot or why he would need a guard.  Watching it, and knowing that Serpico was a whisteblower before I started the movie, I believed that was probably the chief's concern.
But the film is clever in use of "show don't tell", and we don't know precisely what the chief is thinking or fearing, or why he assigned the guard.  This ambiguity is part of what draws the viewer in to find out why the chief feels there needs to be a 24-hour guard.
So although I think many viewers would tend to believe this was likely the chief's fear, the sentence above is too direct, and does not do justice to the screenplay.  Unfortunately, I can't think of a simple way to describe the beauty in which the director gives us strong clues about what the chief is fearing.
I will try and come back to this and see if I can think of something.
In the meantime, I put in a comment in the plot to point here with my desire to improve the sentence to say it more subtly as the screenplay does.  --David Tornheim (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Serpico/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments later in the week. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 18:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


### Basic stuff and comments
Remove all uses of (equivalent to $[number] in 2019). Fixed
@Some Dude From North Carolina: As an opening comment, I want to thank you for taking the review. Now, a comment about the inflation templates:
Can we keep at least the one regarding how much Maas got paid and maybe for the budget? I want readers to understand that productions were not cheaper back then (I just think of younger readers that may not be fully aware of how much the Dollar really depreciated). I understand we can't leave it all because they make reading the article bothersome (it was brought to my attention by a reader in another article), but at least leaving one provides context. I did also delete all the instances of "US$" after the first use, and just left it at "$".--GDuwenHoller! 10:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: The inflation templates can stay as long as they're updated. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 12:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Absolutely, they auto-update when they add the latest inflation index to the template's structure. I guess the 2020 value is not yet available.--GDuwenHoller! 13:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: Well, anyway, I'm going to be adding more notes on production/reception later in the day. Don't forget to add comments and mark each one with  Done,  Fixed, or  Not done, so I can see your progress. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 13:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Done


### Infobox and lead
The budget of the film needs a reference. Done
Additionally, remove the "US" in the budget parameter, per consistency with other articles. Done
The running time also needs a citation, like this one. Done
The box office gross of the film should also be added to the infobox. Done
In the first sentence of the lead, remove the comma after Sidney Lumet. Fixed
"the book Serpico" → "the book of the same name" Fixed
"Peter Maas. Maas wrote it" → "Peter Maas, who wrote the book" Fixed
"the scenes. The production was filmed in July and August." → "the scenes; the production was filmed in July and August." Fixed
"Wexler and Salt" → "Salt and Wexler" Fixed


### Plot and cast
Plot is 662 words, so there's no problems with WP:FILMPLOT.
Remove the comma after "raping a woman". Fixed
Add a comma after "interests". Fixed
"political pressure. Serpico dismisses" → "political pressure, and Serpico dismisses" Fixed
"a honest" → "an honest" Fixed
"he, Blair and" → "he, Blair, and" Fixed
"go to the New York Times" → "go to The New York Times" Fixed
Add a comma after "1972". Fixed
Link Medal of Honor. Done
No issues with the cast section.


### Background
The reference after "Robert Redford as Serpico" should be for the page 450, not 236. Fixed
The reference after "Redford left the project" should be for the page 182, not 167. Fixed
Change the following per the book: "too political" → "very political" Fixed
"to quit multiple times" → "of quitting multiple times" Fixed
"in de Larurentiis" → "in De Laurentiis" Fixed
The reference after "quit in return" should be for page 79, not 80. Fixed
"de Laurentiis" → "De Laurentiis" Fixed


### Production
The reference after "movable walls" should be for page 32, not 31. Fixed
Everything else looks good.


### Release
Can't cite IMDb, so replace the reference after "three years in the 1980s".
My bad, I wasn't citing IMDb. I intended to use the documentary directly as a source via Template:cite AV media, but I provided the IMDb link for it. I removed the link now, and used instead the catalog number of the home media release.--GDuwenHoller! 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


### Critical reception
#### Premiere reception
New York Times → The New York Times Fixed
"for it use" → "for its use" Fixed
"New York Daily News" → "The New York Daily News" Fixed
"The Los Angeles Times" → "The Los Angeles Times" Fixed
"Champlin called" → "Charles Champlin called"
Champlin's article is linked already in the production section. Since I already had introduced him earlier, I felt that I could only call him "Champlin". I could alternatively write his entire name without the wikilink.--GDuwenHoller! 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, if someone were to just scroll down to #Reception, they wouldn't know who Champlin is. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 19:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, it is now linked. It does make a difference for some reviewers, for some others I guess not. Personally, it's the same to me.--GDuwenHoller! 21:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"honesty" ." → "honesty"." Fixed


#### Wide release reception
"Chicago Tribune" → "The Chicago Tribune" Fixed
"and Sharpe" → "and Cornelia Sharpe" Fixed
"The Miami Herald" → "The Miami Herald" Fixed
"Detroit Free Press" → "The Detroit Free Press" Fixed
"Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" → "The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette" Fixed
"Honolulu Advertiser" → "The Honolulu Advertiser" Fixed
"Austin American-Statesman" → "The Austin American-Statesman" Fixed
"Fort Worth Star-Telegram" → "The Fort Worth Star-Telegram" Fixed
"Kansas City Star" → "The Kansas City Star" Fixed


#### Later reviews
"On the Review aggregator" → "On the review aggregator" Fixed
This wasn't changed. Done
Don't put Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, or AllMovie in italics. Fixed
Rotten Tomatoes should not be in italics. Fixed
This link only mentions seven mainstream critics, not one hundred. Fixed
"Allmovie" → "AllMovie" Fixed
"out of a seven reviews" → "out of seven reviews" Done


### Legacy
The source used for the Blu-Ray release doesn't mention 2013. Luckily, I found a replacement that does.
I was citing the Blu-ray disc directly. I did again commit the distracting mistake of adding the Amazon locator. I replaced it with the catalog number of the Paramount Home media release.--GDuwenHoller! 21:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Don't put Masters of Cinema in italics. Fixed
"A television series" → "A television series" Fixed
"between September 1976 and February 1977" → "between September 1976 and January 1977" Fixed


### Accolades
The accolades table needs a reference column. Done
IMDb can't be used as a citation per WP:IMDB and WP:IMDBREF.
Replaced with references to websites. Fixed
As a side comment, I archived all the URLs for good measure.--GDuwenHoller! 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Names like "Pacino", "Lumet", "Salt and Wexler", and "Theodorakis" should be in full every time they're used. Fixed
The Directors Guild of America Award nomination isn't mentioned in this reference.
Not directly, but it is there. The website's design is a bit odd. You get to see it only if you click "Winners and Nominees". By default, you are shown "Winners". There seems to be no direct way to link it as far as I can see.--GDuwenHoller! 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


### Other
#### Images
"Pacino as Frank Serpico, in a publicity portrait" → "Pacino as Frank Serpico in a publicity portrait" Fixed


#### References
Link the American Film Institute in the first three references. Done
Actually, try linking all websites/publishers/newspapers in all citations. Done (where possible)
Don't add "[company] staff" into author parameters. If there's no attributed author, don't add anything. Not done
Archive all archivable sources (I recommend signing up and using this free tool).
Thanks for the tool, nice to have such resources! it was a pain to do it one by one. When it comes to the "staff" in the author parameters, I need it for the footnote system of the Harvard references. The author parameter, year of publication and page (if we are talking about a book, newspaper or magazine) are required. If an author is missing, the link on the shorted footnote would fail to point to the source at the bottom.--GDuwenHoller! 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


### Overview
#### GAN table
#### Notes
@GDuwen: I just finished adding my notes for the production and release sections. I will be adding more suggestions, this time tackling references, tomorrow. Hope I can promote this to GA-status soon.  Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Sounds good to me, we'll get there.--GDuwenHoller! 19:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: Well, I just finished adding my notes at #References. Don't forget to look at my reply at #Premiere_reception and to do the only suggestion at #Production. After doing so, ping me, and if I don't see any more problems, this article will be passed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 19:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Done. I did add some comments regarding the reference system.--GDuwenHoller! 21:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: Everything looks good but sources still need to be archived. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Alright, everything's now archived on the Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive.--GDuwenHoller! 21:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: You sure? Cause no changes have been made. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: I just did it manually on the Internet Archive's website.--GDuwenHoller! 21:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: That's weird. I guess the tool doesn't work with the current reference format. I guess the only thing that can be done is manually archiving them yourself in the article via editing. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Yea, I can do it manually in case it doesn't work. But the main thing is that every single page is archived in the Wayback Machine. If for some reason the links go dead, wikibots are able to replace them without intervention. I'm not really a heavy tool user, but I've seen that the ones I archived manually in the past were replaced without me taking any particular action.--GDuwenHoller! 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@GDuwen: Well, since it's not really required for an article to have links to archives and because of your reasoning above, I'm going to just pass the article right now. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 21:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina:I want to thank you again for your work as a reviewer. It was for sure a long article to fact-check and to make corrections on. Glad we can finally close it. Great work!--GDuwenHoller! 22:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The book preceded the movie.
Why is there apparently no article in Wikipedia about the book by Peter Maas? 2601:200:C000:1A0:A4FC:DC05:FDCF:8E10 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Good observation. I suppose that would be because the movie probably obscured the original success of the book and its existence got reduced to just be the source from which the film was adapted (as it happened to a bunch of other works). There's always room for improvement in Wikipedia!--GDuwenHoller! 18:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)