# Talk:Shoot the Moon

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shoot the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 14:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments
"inspired by his encounters with dysfunctional couples" — can be rephrased as "deriving inspiration from his encounters with dysfunctional couples". Also try to find a wikilink for dysfunctional couples for those who might not be aware of its meaning.
Wikilink "Principal photography" both in the lead and the Filming section.
De-italicise "Palme d'Or" in all its instances. Makes it look like a magazine than an award lol.
"Scenes set in Sandy's beach house were filmed in Stinson Beach, California.[8] George and Faith's divorce proceeding was filmed" — Can be rephrased as "Scenes set in Sandy's beach house were filmed in Stinson Beach, California.[8] George and Faith's divorce proceeding was shot" to avoid repetition of "filmed" at close proximity. Similarly for the next two sentences, you can have "filmed" in the first and "shot" in the second.
Expand the critical reception section rather than simply saying xx said/stated/called/described xx. Say something about the performances and technical aspects.
Other than that a neat little article. Once and if my comments are addressed, I will promote the article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Made various edits and changes to the article. I will try to improve on the critical response details. FrankRizzo (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the "Critical response" section of the article, as per your suggestions. 21:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


#### Comments from Slightlymad
Do you mind if I chime in? I think Ssven is pretty wrapped up in another GA review.

Infobox
This is the correct link for the runtime, as the ones in the article is for the home video release. Archived version here: [1]
Lead
"MGM" unnecessary
"Principal photography commenced from January 1981 to April of that year, on locations in Marin County, California." → poorly written; how about: Principal photography lasted  62 days, in the period from January to April 1981, on location in Marin County.
"Shoot the Moon' received a generally positive critical response, with reviewers praising the performances, cinematography, story and direction. → consider rewriting into: "Shoot The Moon premiered on February 19, 1982 to good reviews, with critics praising the performances, cinematography, story and direction.
"The film was a box office bomb upon release, grossing $9.2 million in North America." → "Even so, it was deemed a box-office failure, failing to make its production budget back having grossed 9.2 million in North America."
Production
That quote box shouldn't be used for decorative purposes. Probably best if you just conflate it into the prose, rather.
No periods in captions unless the follow complete sentences.
"Principal photography commenced on January 15, 1981. The film was made on a budget of $12 million." → Second sentence should be the opening.
"Shoot the Moon does not feature an original film score. It was Parker's decision not to have a conventional score after working on the musical Fame." → How about: "After working on the musical Fame, Parker had decided not to employ an original score for Shoot the Moon.
Omit another instance of "principal photography"
Delink England
Release
"However, a clause in Keaton's contract stipulated that the film..." → have you read WP:HOWEVER?
"It was a box office bomb" → slightly amend to "box-office failure" and just pipelink to the article.
Reception
"The review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes sampled 9 reviews, and gave the film a score of 89%, with an average score of 7.5 out of 10." → single-digit numbers should be worded; "and" an average.
I, too, feel like suggesting a rewriting of this section from scratch. As it stands, it consists almost entirely of pull-quotes from film critics, almost all positive and directly quoted, with no significant thematic thread uniting them. Your argument in the lead that this movie attained praise for its "performances, cinematography, story and direction" should be elaborated here, because otherwise this claim would be synthesis. More importantly, paraphrase whenever you can, and don't just quote directly from the source because you can't think of anything else to say. See WP:Copyediting reception sections for sage advice. Slightlymad 05:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Made changes to the article as per suggestions. The Critical response section will take some time to improve on.FrankRizzo (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Great! I'll be waiting, then. :) Slightlymad 03:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
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. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

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: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail: 

The sources are good too. The article looks better now, FrankRizzo2006. A special note of thanks to Slightlymad for his inputs.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviwing this article, Ssven2 for your suggestions and comments, Slightlymad! FrankRizzo (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)