Talk:A Better Tomorrow

Tarantino

Quintin Tarantino isn't a hollywood director, he's a Independent film director, so I took that away.

Start Class?

Yes, this article is small, but I think what is here is very well written content. I really do want to see this movie to find out more about it and perhaps contribute to this page.RSido 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack -- that tune...

In the part where Chow Yun-Fat is stealing the reel of tape, there is a short tune played -- this tune is recognizable as part of the main theme of Speed (film) soundtrack. That movie came out 8 years after A Better Tomorrow. Does anyone know who originally composed the tune in question? Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NeverlandAriana (article contribs).

Film series / franchise page warranted

There's at least 8 films related to this IP. Why isn't there a franchise or film series page? Braden (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

GA review

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:A Better Tomorrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: FrostFairBlade (talk · contribs) 00:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Taking this as part of the GAN Backlog Drive. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for taking the time to review this article! – FrostFairBlade (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@FrostFairBlade: This is a great article, well done! I just have a few things listed below to address before I pass the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Thank you! I'll be going through your feedback throughout the week, starting with the low-hanging fruit first. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay @Adamstom.97, I've gone through your notes. The feedback that is marked  Done has been implemented. The rest I'd like your input and approval on, just as a confirmation that I'm headed in the right direction. Thanks! – FrostFairBlade (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Great work with everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments

Criteria 1

• There are quite a few duplicate links throughout the article, including in the lead. Re-introducing / re-linking is okay at the first instance in a major section that a reader may reasonably jump directly to, but there does not seem to be a consistent approach in this article as to which sections should be re-linking key pages and which should not. Makes it seem like most of the re-links are accidental.

• Yeah, looking at how many times I accidentally linked TVB, I guess it does look weird LOL. I did a first pass on the article to remove duplicate links. Can you look at it again and let me know if there's any egregious ones I've missed? – FrostFairBlade (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have removed some other duplicate links. I recommend using a script like User:Ucucha/duplinks.js to help find these in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• The budget can be added to the infobox, it doesn't matter that you don't have an exact value as it is only expected to be an approximate value.

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• English-language reviewers had mixed opinions about its melodramatic plot - I don't think there is enough evidence of this specific criticism in the body of the article for it to be so prominently stated in the lead.

•  Done; I've removed it from the lead. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• The plot summary is a bit long, the guideline is 700 words max.

•  Done; I've trimmed the summary to 700 words exactly. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think "Sung Tse-ho" in the plot summary should be changed to "Ho" with the note, and you could add the note to the first instance of "Kit", for consistency. One use of "Tse-ho" in the cast section which should be "Ho".

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• You should be consistent on whether you are starting with a capital after the colons in the cast list.

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• A Better Tomorrow drew inspiration from... - the film didn't draw the inspiration itself.

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• ...despite Woo's poor box office performance. - despite the poor performance of his previous films, I assume.

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused by the design section, it is combining design and choreography information, both of which could be fit into the development and/or filming sections.

•  Done – I initially delineated the design information from the rest to signify that those production decisions were more intentionally designed (per my research into Hong Kong cinema, many productions during this time were shot with minimal pre-production/planning and relied on improv and spontaneous creativity on the set; A Better Tomorrow was no exception, hence Tsui Hark's comments about the shoot being "unstable"). I also looked at more recent FA film articles for inspiration (e.g. User:Darkwarriorblake's work on 1980s films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Aliens), which separate the two sections. However, I agree that the design information can be moved into "Filming and post-production", since there's not nearly as much stuff about ABT's design relative to the FA articles I mentioned above. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• The Box office section is also a bit confusing as it includes quite a bit that is not actually about box office performance, such as the paragraph on later re-releases. Renaming the heading could help clarify this, or even splitting out some of those details to their own subsection. You also have the Post-release section which could be used for later re-releases.

• Took a stab at addressing this by putting the paragraph on re-releases under its own "Re-releases" subsection under the main "Post-release" heading. This way, the festival screenings and the theatrical re-releases (without publicly-known box office figures) can be separate from the actual box office information. If there's any further changes you'd like to see, let me know. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• That makes more sense to me, good work. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Shing's rise to power however, hurts on multiple fronts: missing a comma before "however".

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think the quote box in the Cinematic homage and meta-reference section should clarify that he is talking about Bonnie and Clyde.

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Mobile Fighter G Gundam and Black Lagoon clarify what these are, it is not initially clear that they are not films.

•  Done. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• The list attributed to GamesRadar+ can be attributed to Total Film, GamesRadar+ is just the publishing website for the magazine.

•  Done. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if the Sequels and spin-offs section would make more sense integrated into Legacy? Or perhaps we should just rethink the split of information across the two? This is because the current Sequels section includes details on films that are not really sequels or spin-offs in the traditional sense and are more similar to the things that are covered by Cultural influence.

- adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• So I thought about this a bit – I think the mention of Sanjay Gupta's Aatish: Feel the Fire can safely be moved to the "Legacy" section because it's unrelated, like you said. I do think, however, that the Korean and mainland remakes make more sense under the existing "Sequels and spin-offs" section rather than under "Cultural influence", as they're officially-licensed adaptations of the original source.
• Similarly, while I think you can make the argument that the info on the AI version can go under "Cultural influence" (i.e. the reason for the AI remake is because of the original film's cultural cachet in Asian pop culture), I believe that the China Film Foundation's intent to turn it into a fully-fledged licensed movie (per IGN) affords the AI movie to be mentioned in the same space as the non-AI remakes. With this in mind, do you think a suitable solution would be for us to rename the "Sequels and spin-offs" section to "Sequels and remakes", instead? I think that rewording the subheading would address your concerns of the headline not quite matching the content – let me know what you think. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am happy with your changes and arguments. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Criteria 2

No copyvio concerns, good use of print sources, I have spot checked web references and all look good so far. Link Dispenser finds a few potential issues with some web sources that may be down and missing archives that I recommend be addressed. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I finally got Link Dispenser to load its analysis – do you have any specific examples of issues? Maybe I just don't know how to use the tool, but I think Link Dispenser flagged a lot of false positives for any links that aren't from Archive.org or Google Books. For example, it claims all of The New York Times links as dead (e.g. this one), even though they're very much alive (I suspect it's due to its inability to get past NYT's anti-robot/crawler systems). That being said, it's a good reminder for me to archive the specific pages for some of the Google Books URLs, so I'll get right on that. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Following up on this: I've archived as many of the Google Books links that would archive. If there are any web sources that are down without an archive, let me know. – FrostFairBlade (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There were only a couple refs left that were genuinely down, I have marked them as dead. - adamstom97 (talk)

Criteria 6

You almost have the images and quote boxes alternating throughout the article, I would recommend adjusting the alignments so these are consistently alternating right and left sides. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done – FrostFairBlade (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Review status

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.