Talk:Moscow Strikes Back

Moscow Strikes Back has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 18, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Military history: War films

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force

Film: Documentary / Soviet and post-Soviet / War

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

Soviet Union Low‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Long uncited remarks by the director[edit]

The following is certainly of interest, and it appears genuine, but a source is required for it. If you can find a suitable reliable source, feel free to add (some of) this to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film's director Ilya Kopalin recalled of the film shoot in the winter of 1941–1942 that:

"It's been severe, but happy days. Severe, because we made a movie in a front-line city. Basement studio has turned into the apartment where we lived like in casern. At night, we discussed with the cameramen the job for the next day, and in the morning the machine took away the cameramen to the front to back in the evening with the footage. The shooting was very heavy. There were thirty-degree frosts. The mechanism of the movie camera froze and clogged with snow, numbed hands refused to act. There were times when in the car, which returned from the front, lay the body of our dead comrade and broken equipment. But the knowledge that the enemy pulls back from Moscow, that collapses the myth of the invincibility of the Nazi armies, gave us strength...We knew that the film should be created as soon as possible, that the people should as soon as possible to see on the screen the offspring of the first victories of the army. And shot material immediately move to the lab on the editing table. We cut both day and night in the cold editing rooms without going to the shelter even when air-raid ... At the end of December 1941 cutting of the movie was over. In the great cold hall began dubbing studio. There was the most responsible exciting entry: "Fifth Symphony" by Tchaikovsky. Bright Russian melody, outcry, wailing chords. And on the screen were burned towns, gallows, corpses, and all the way of retreat of fascists revealed signs of violence and barbarism. We listened to music, watched the screen and cried. Cried the musicians, who played with difficulty by frozen hands."^{[citation needed]}^[1]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moscow Strikes Back/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 22:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review, seems like an interesting film! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: There's some work to be done, and I'll continue the review once the points are addressed. Happy to discuss if you disagree with any. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I'll get to this in the next few days. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MOS standards; plot is under 700 words.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I question the reliability of some sources. popsike is definitely not reliable for listing a person associated with the English film. Ref 6 is just... another Wikipedia article? Not reliable, and it's a WP:BAREURLS. Some revision is needed here. Removed the popsike source; the NYT gives the same data. Replaced the Russian ref also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Sources are reliable and cited in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited, no OR visible
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The "Reception" section is almost entirely quotes from one NYT article, causing Earwig to register a nearly 75% violation. Are all these quotes really necessary? Some, if not most, should be paraphrased. Paraphrased most of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm concerned about the lack of a "Production" section, which is an important part of film articles (see MOS:FILMPRODUCTION). There's certainly information about production; looking at one of your sources, the AFI catalog listing, there's plenty of info there, and they even have a list of citations from which they got the info. A "Release" section may also be appropriate, to describe how it was distributed in the USSR and elsewhere. Added a production section, covering both Russian and Foreign versions, and giving brief details of releases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Article covers the main aspects of the film.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~The images in the "Plot" gallery and the one in the infobox are improperly tagged with CC public domain- they should use the same tag as the documentary itself, `PD-Russia-1996`.~~ Done all of them (including those not used in the article). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Media are properly PD and CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I struggle to see the point of the gallery under "Plot" if the film itself is right there. Other old film GAs (e.g. A Dog's Love) just have the film in the plot section, as that's all that's necessary if a reader wants to see parts of the film. That assumes people have the time and the network bandwidth to watch a film in order to understand an article. But this is an encyclopedia, and articles should stand alone without requiring people to browse through or watch other media. The small gallery in "Plot" gives a quick, compact visual impression of the look of the film, and a glimpse of its content. I'd say that was entirely encyclopedic here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough- media are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

^ original text: Это были суровые, но и радостные дни. Суровые, потому что мы создавали фильм в условиях прифронтового города. Подвальный этаж студии превратился в своеобразную квартиру, где мы жили, как в казарме. Ночами мы обсуждали с операторами задание на следующий день, а утром машины увозили операторов на фронт, чтобы вечером вернуться с отснятым материалом. Съёмки были очень тяжёлые. Тридцатиградусные морозы. Замерзал и забивался снегом механизм киноаппарата, окоченевшие руки отказывались действовать. Были случаи, когда в машине, вернувшейся с фронта, лежало тело погибшего товарища и разбитая аппаратура. Но сознание того, что враг откатывается от Москвы, что рушится миф о непобедимости фашистских армий, придавало силы. Мы понимали, что фильм должен быть создан в кратчайший срок, что народ должен как можно быстрее увидеть на экране плоды первых побед своей армии. И сразу же из лаборатории материал шёл на монтажный стол. Монтировали и днём и ночью, в холодных монтажных комнатах, не уходя в убежище даже при воздушных тревогах… В конце декабря 1941 года монтаж картины был закончен. В огромном холодном павильоне студии началось озвучание. Наступила самая ответственная волнующая запись: «Пятая симфония» Чайковского. Светлая русская мелодия, гневный протест, рыдающие аккорды. А на экране сожжённые города, виселицы, трупы, и на всём пути отступления фашистов следы насилия и варварства. Мы слушали музыку, смотрели на экран и плакали. Плакали оркестранты, с трудом игравшие замёрзшими руками.

[1] riginal text: Это были суровые, но и радостные дни. Суровые, потому что мы создавали фильм в условиях прифронтового города. Подвальный этаж студии превратился в своеобразную квартиру, где мы жили, как в казарме. Ночами мы обсуждали с операторами задание на следующий день, а утром машины увозили операторов на фронт, чтобы вечером вернуться с отснятым материалом. Съёмки были очень тяжёлые. Тридцатиградусные морозы. Замерзал и забивался снегом механизм киноаппарата, окоченевшие руки отказывались действовать. Были случаи, когда в машине, вернувшейся с фронта, лежало тело погибшего товарища и разбитая аппаратура. Но сознание того, что враг откатывается от Москвы, что рушится миф о непобедимости фашистских армий, придавало силы. Мы понимали, что фильм должен быть создан в кратчайший срок, что народ должен как можно быстрее увидеть на экране плоды первых побед своей армии. И сразу же из лаборатории материал шёл на монтажный стол. Монтировали и днём и ночью, в холодных монтажных комнатах, не уходя в убежище даже при воздушных тревогах… В конце декабря 1941 года монтаж картины был закончен. В огромном холодном павильоне студии началось озвучание. Наступила самая ответственная волнующая запись: «Пятая симфония» Чайковского. Светлая русская мелодия, гневный протест, рыдающие аккорды. А на экране сожжённые города, виселицы, трупы, и на всём пути отступления фашистов следы насилия и варварства. Мы слушали музыку, смотрели на экран и плакали. Плакали оркестранты, с трудом игравшие замёрзшими руками.

[1]