This review is transcluded from Talk:Life After Beth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 03:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 12:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this as part of my pledge for the review at Talk:Solanum baretiae/GA1. Comments to follow within the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.

• Lead: "Zach struggles in trying to grieve the Beth he knew while also trying to prevent the zombie Beth's deterioration by maintaining the appearance of a happy relationship they did not have" there are perhaps a bit too many things in this sentence.

• Changed  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Plot: maybe can be condensed a bit? For example, I don't understand why Maury "catches them" in "Zach drives off with an increasingly distraught Beth, but Maury catches them, knocks Zach unconscious, and takes Beth home" but I am not sure it is important.

• Condensed plot quite a bit, rewritten that part  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing and development: "Predominantly a working screenwriter before he directed Life After Beth, it was his only spec script[9] and the first film he wrote with the intention of directing himself.[13] It appeared on the inaugural Black List," there are a few things I would prefer to be explained per MOS:NOFORCELINK (working screenwriter, spec script, the Black List) but I know this is not part of the GA criteria. But "Black List" certainly sounds like people disliked the film or tried to ban it; if you don't want people to think that, perhaps say a few words about it.

• Yeah, I'd find it hard to naturally incorporate definitions of "working screenwriter" and "spec script" (in theory quite simple things, but which could be misunderstood: I only linked "working screenwriter" because I thought someone unfamiliar with the term might think 'working' simply meant 'employed') - given the prominence of the content relating to Black List, I've added something there that reads quite naturally.  Done (but what do you think) Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the link for "working screenwriter" helps here, it goes to a section called "Types" and ctrl-f "working" brings up a movie plot.

• I've removed that link. I suppose the intention when adding it was to direct to the types of working screenwriter (studio assignments, querying spec scripts, script doctoring), but if it's confusing, as you say it doesn't help. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a fan of linking to Wikisource without warning. The poem is so short and old that you could consider just quoting it in a quotebox?

• Part of the reason I didn't do that originally is because there are different readings of it, but now have added as quote box with the third reading (I believe the academically most-agreed-upon one).  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Baena attached producer friend Michael Zakin" not sure attach is the best word here; which intransitive meaning of attach are you using?

• ... in the normal film sense? See e.g. throughout the Dallas Buyers Club article. It may be jargon but it's commonplace enough in announcements etc. I think readers are familiar. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't recall ever hearing the word in this meaning, but then I don't really care about business English. I'll shut up about it. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• " than when he had first tried and zombie comedy was not an established genre" the tense is a bit confusing here

• Rewritten, better?  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Casting: again, "attached"?

• See above. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You are overdoing the direct quotes throughout the article. It reads like the script for a documentary more than a neutral article.

• Yep, the trimming process was incomplete. Rewritten a lot.  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Filming: "the bare-minimum production you can do while still being full union" what does "being full union" mean?

• Only hiring union workers. I have scrapped this quote for original phrasing, trying to not be SYNTH-y.  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-production: without context, I can't tell whether the band was really in a plane crash in Bali. It is a cute quote, but not particularly encyclopedic in language.

• While I find a cute quote can be nice addition to break up a longer article, I've changed this.  Done Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Release: What is the European Film Market? It sounds like the European film market.

• I can't find a natural-sounding way to stick "the major movie trade fair run in conjunction with the Berlin International Film Festival" in here. Feel free to try. However, it's something that I don't think will confuse or mislead readers, and even if they don't know the details, it'll make enough sense (film market in Europe is there in the name), so is inline explanation really needed? Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd go for "European film market trade fair" but I won't insist that you do. —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "top fifty markets" mean?

• The most popular/profitable domestic movie markets. Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Domestic" might be a good adjective to add here, I wasn't sure whether we were talking cities or countries. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Accolades: "the 38th best ever zombie film and [..] the best zom-rom-com since Shaun Of The Dead" this should be attributed, especially given the mixed reception.

•  Done (and included an otherwise unrelated source for the contextual info on the editor). Kingsif (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at sources in a few hours, but I do think the article is not enough in Wikipedia's voice with its over-reliance on quotes. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1300653913.

• Checking 2,3,20,22,30,40,44,70,76 to start.

• Some of these were here before my involvement and I'm less familiar with them, but will answer what questions I can. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2a: ok, but why is this only in the infobox? 2b: can't see August 6 in the source

•  Done [2a] Added to filming section where budget is already vaguely mentioned. [2b] Me either, and other sources I look up for when production wrapped only mention it took 22 days. Not including Sundays and some mental math does lead to August 6, but have rewritten and introduced source just for timespan. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 3: the archived version (which I assume is the one being cited) does not include the $274,717 figure

•  Done Updated the archive link - the previous did have the figure, but clicking to a different tab. New archive link has it on the exact page linked. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 20: ok.
• 22: this is a 30 minute interview and very hard to check. Do you have timestamps? a,c are not attributed to anyone; for something in a live interview I would expect attribution.

•  Done Added timestamps, added some "Baena said" but they're relatively simple facts, not really warranting attribution. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 30: can't see Reilly mentioned here.

•  Done Good catch, added another obit that mentions him as well in the context of the article text. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 40: yes, but why use a quote? if you use a quote, attribute it

•  Done In the edits just made, no longer uses a quote. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 44a: where in this book is this from? 44b: yes, but you should mention the title of the essay, "Zombies Want Serious Commitment: The Dread of Liquid Modernity in Life After Beth, Burying the Ex and Nina Forever".

•  Done [44a] Added page refs. [44b] Thought that was a bit long, but added. Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 70: yes
• 76: yes

Checking a few more as there were issues with source to text integrity:

• 26: ok
• 32: ok
• 66: ok
• 69: yes, but why do you need the quote?

• If you're referring to (thought the tone was) "odd and all over the place, it's neither comedy nor horror", it's not something that can easily be reworded without just being close paraphrasing or trying too hard to say something else, and is too long to not directly quote. How would you reword it to express the reviewer's view? Kingsif (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We could say "criticised the film's inconsistent tone". But the quotes in this section aren't as problematic as in the other sections. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues with text not in the reference as stated, but the main point is the Wikipedia:Overquoting. —Kusma (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Some prose comments above. Generally overly reliant on direct quotes; some sections are candidates for {{Over-quotation}}.
• The lead section is too short and does not summarise some key parts of the article (especially the long Production section). The Plot section, on the other hand, is a bit long.
• References are formatted nicely, but there are several lengthy video sources with no indication where in the video the statement can be found.
• Sources are quite heavy on direct interviews and entertainment industry reporting with little in-depth scholarly analysis, but that's OK for the topic.
• A few statements not supported by the sources given.
• Scope is fine with the exception of too much space used for the plot. No issues with neutrality or stability detected.
• Images are OK from a license point of view.
• Would expect (better) images of more of the main people involved (Baena, De Haan), as free images are available. That Baena is depicted at the premiere doesn't really justify including an overexposed low-resolution photograph where we can hardly recognise him.

A bit of work to do, mostly on quotes and the lead. Otherwise the article is good enough to make me want to check the film out at some point. —Kusma (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll get to work hopefully soon when I can, issues seem to mostly stem from the Frankenstein-y nature of ‘take a decent article and expand on production/release’, and not having done finishing touches. Quick question/thought: would it really be worth adding a different image of Baena when the ones we have on Commons aren’t really that high quality? Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we must have a picture of Baena, but if we do, why not use one where he is recognisable? —Kusma (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added that one more because it's a photo of the premiere (quite rare on Commons), not because it's depicting Baena. I could tweak it if you think the photo is too low quality. Happy to add photos of DeHaan and Plaza.

Fair enough. Thank you for adding the DeHaan picture, now I know he is Valerian. —Kusma (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others: direct quotations dramatically reduced, plot section trimmed, video refs now have timestamps, sources mentioned have been addressed, paragraph added to lead. Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kusma: pinging. Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pong. I think I can live with the remaining amount of quotes. One more prose thing: in the lead, "Appearing in a cameo, it was one of Garry Marshall's final film appearances": can we say this without duplicating "appear"? "A cameo by Garry Marshall was one of his final film appearances"?

  @Kingsif: Much improved, a few responses above. —Kusma (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done all these, too. (But how dare you remind me the Valerian movie exists, so awful!) Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All right then. (I have mixed feelings about that movie: the Valerian character is insufferable, but some of the visuals are pretty cool). —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed