Jump to content

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

I am going to scribble down comments over time and then do a checklist review after going through the article. The checklist will compare the article to WP:WIAGA. The comments may not strictly adhere to this guideline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • First. Let me say that I am glad to see an attempt has been made to continue improving the article since the PR ended.
  • As I look at the WP:LEAD, it violates preferred formatting with more than four paragraphs. Please reorganize it into four paragraphs. If your article and lead are organized properly, Ruhrfisch's rule of mentioning each section of the article in the LEAD would give a good overview of the article.
Done.--The lorax (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can not fill out four paragraphs go with three. One-line one-sentence paragraphs are unacceptable. Please either expand or merge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consolidated the other paragraphs, hopefully that solved the issue.--The lorax (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the film based on the book? If so mention it in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times describes it as "a companion to the film," so no.--The lorax (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typically, the first paragraph introduces all variants of the name. Thus, I think the book and the album should be mentioned in the first paragraph to help the reader looking for any variant (unless and until those items have their own articles at which point a hatnote would give immediate clarification).
Done.--The lorax (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is an album (or two since the section is titled An_Inconvenient_Truth#Score_and_soundtrack there may be one of both) that should either have its own article or be mentioned as an alternate use of the name for clarification. If it is significant enough to have its own top level section the reader should get some clarification on the use of the name, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was the opera ever a notable thing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand the hatnote for the opera (since it is now in see also) and give a brief mention in the article somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created a disambiguation page that encompasses all of that.--The lorax (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there is no strict GA requirement, I would like to see WP:ALT text for the images because the alt text checker reveals none.
Done.--The lorax (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images in templates and infoboxes need alt text too.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the soundtrack image still deficient?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think this movie is about "An Inconvenient Truth focuses on Al Gore and his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis." It is about the climate crisis, not Al Gore and his travels, if I recall correctly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe while ostensibly the film is about global warming, the crux of the film is Gore's campaign to educate others on the issue with his slide show.--The lorax (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the takeaway for the reader from the NYT description "mainly consisting of a lecture about climate change given by Al Gore" and your "focuses on Al Gore and his travels" is totally different. I would look for a few more reliable sources and summarize their descriptions rather than write my own.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lecture is mentioned in the next sentence though; I think a good part of the film is focused on him traveling to other places (i.e. "his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public...") and giving the slide show.--The lorax (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Synopsis is an issue for me. However in a prior review for Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/GA1, I have been convinced to not be strict with film plots. I just don't buy a 2006 Best Documentary Feature winner not having plot reviews readily available in the press.
    • Each quote should have an inline citation. If it is verbatim from the movie the citation should say as much.
    • I get the feeling that you are summarizing the movie from your own perspective of a DVD rental. What we would prefer is a WP:RS summary of the movie. Uncited plot summaries are acceptable according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but I think this movie should have critical reviews that summarize the movie. From these you can expand to the level of detail you aspire to here. This was an Oscar winner so there have to be sources that can be helpful here. Some stuff is here. Look around. If after checking you find nothing let me know, but I think leaving it uncited is not totally necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible that you could expressly state that the movie is not based on the book of the same name.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen the movie and do not understand what you describe as "A centerpoint of the film". Is this a graph, a video, a table? What makes it the centerpoint? What did he reveal?Green tickY--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe someone added that because it was included in the slide show as soon as filming commenced and was a new study at the time.--The lorax (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why this is a centerpoint and how it was presented in the film. Maybe add a phrase saying "A centerpoint of the film was a then-new slide exhibiting his exmamination..." if you have a WP:RS saying it was new or other reason to make this claim. Also, it might help to say According to XXX, A centerpoint or describe it as a centerpoint because it was referenced several times later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisjwatts (talk) The link to illustrator in the Slides section, shouldn't this link to Adobe illustrator and not just illustrator? —Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
Scientific basis
Done.--The lorax (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Background
Origins
  • "causing fossil fuel to last longer" is ambiguously worded. It could mean that a given use will extend longer, but what I think you mean is "causing the earth's finite supply of fossil fuel to last longer" or something like that in a phrase that should be set off by commas. Then the rest of the sentence needs some parallel structure, IMO. The parallel referrent of "thereby decrease emission of greenhouse gases in the short term but not long term" is ambiguous although maybe just putting "to" in front of it makes it clear that "the implementation of a carbon tax" is the referent (the noun that this dependent clause refers to).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section was way overly technical and confusing, so I changed the description to: "pushed for the implementation of a carbon tax to encourage energy efficiency and diversify the choices of fuel better reflecting the true environmental costs of energy use."--The lorax (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that tense; did you notice any similar problems?--The lorax (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the difficulty is that we are speaking of the film in the present tense and these political debates are past tense issues. Let me ponder this a little bit further.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • industrial base and carbon footprint need links
Done.--The lorax (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--The lorax (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I went back and dewikified all the Guggenheims and Laurie Davids.--The lorax (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Score and soundtrack
The score from the film though appears to be on the official soundtrack; Etheridge's song isn't included.--The lorax (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • The second paragraph could use citations and dates for each festival.
Done.--The lorax (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Times should be linked.
Done.--The lorax (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammy award needs a citation and should not be a single-sentence paragraph.
I beefed it up a little bit; it comes after a hidden list of additional awards.--The lorax (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
  • In general this section needs few subsections and fewer short paragraphs.
  • I would link Curriculum since it is not such a common word, Dana Perino since she is notable.
Done.--The lorax (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy

Formal review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Minor issues
    You seem to be mixing up the terms film score and soundtrack. Read these links. Link the terms in your article after you have rewritten it to be consistent with these links or fix the links if you feel they are wrong.
I just changed the subheadline to Music which corrects previous confusion over terms.
The section title is better, but now the text obfuscates the issue instead of clarifies it. I don't see soundtrack in the text, but you plop a track listing and a template in there without explaining it. You should probably leave the track listing for the soundtrack article. I don't understand how the Etheridge song is associated with the movie if it is not on the soundtrack. Is it on an album. I remain unsure if the soundtrack and the score are being confused. Please use the links for both terms in the text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noted in the article that it is playing in the end credits. While the song wasn't on the official soundtrack ala My Heart Will Go On, it was available for iTunes digital download.--The lorax (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please link score and soundtrack.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance:
    There are a few minor issues
    In the WP:LEAD you mean New York City and not the state, which would mean you should change the link there and delink it in the redundant links later.
    You still need to delink the later link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are Los Angeles and all those films are linked again in the Background section?
    Now you removed the films in the text and left them in the WP:LEAD. Recall the Lead summarizes the article and should not refer to anything not in the main text.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
    Still not resolved--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--The lorax (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the detail is in the body, it is unnecessary in the LEAD. Just say fifth in the lead and name the films in the body.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. After the first mention just use last name. Several names appear in full multiple times.
Still see Davis in the text multiple times and that is the only name I checked. Please be thorough.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
  1. Grammy award should not be a single-sentence paragraph.Green tickY
    I would link Curriculum since it is not such a common word, Dana Perino since she is notable.Green tickY
    Impact section needs fewer subsections and fewer short paragraphs.Green tickY
    I just consolidated all of that into International.--The lorax (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One-line one-sentence paras are no good.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--The lorax (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    I just noticed that may references are in ALL CAPS. Please fix these into normal capitialization.Green tickY
    Not so sure 11th Annual SATELLITE Awards does not need to be fixed, but all else seems good. Check this one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done--The lorax (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I believe this is a rare case where the general plot should be required to have reliable sources. This is a political film and as such there are opinions about what it actually says. This was a very prominent film in the media and expert explanations should abound. A few should be available.
    C. No original research:
    See above
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Seems sufficient for the most part
    • The second paragraph of the Reception section could use full dates for each festival screening.
    "leaving the United States the only industrialized nation in the world not to have signed the treaty." - is this true with Obama in office. This article needs to be updated for the new administration. I believe Obama and Gore see eye-to-eye on many environmental issues.Green tickY
While Obama is amenable to negotiating a new climate change treaty and all eyes will be on the US during December's United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009, US policy on Kyoto hasn't changed:"We are not going to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. That is out," US climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing told AFP.[1]--The lorax (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Green tickY[reply]
It would be good if the article were current on this issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a source saying Obama saw the film and it influenced his policies, so I don't think we should say anything to that effect until some quote pops up where he's like "AIT made me go to Copenhagen" or something similar.--The lorax (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    Seems sufficient; kind of wish the critical reviews were more in depth like Last_Chance_Harvey#Critical_reception.
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Not satisfied with neutrality since WP:RS are avoided in plot summary
    It is hard to assess neutrality when quotes are not attributed. Several quotes need citations.Green tickY
    WP:RS need to be found as references.
I found a bunch of links that reference his quotes from the film; is this what you had in mind?--The lorax (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I still would like to see an express statement that the movie is not based on the book of the same name.
    It remains unclear why a section is described as the centerpoint. No reliable source is noted for this claim and no explanation is given.
Gore says "the idea for a book on the climate crisis actually came first." in the introduction of the book version. But in the previous sentence, he says Laurie David was the influencing factor for the movie, not the book. I removed the "centerpoint" stuff.--The lorax (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:Algoretestifying.jpeg has its source and author swapped; File:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg has an incomplete template; File:Album of "An Inconvenient Truth".jpg is not necessary in this article and probably in violation of WP:NFCC. Movie articles are usually allowed a few fair use images. Although I am not sure it would really pass NFCC, I will allow File:AlGoreWin.jpg.Green tickY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  3. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I am willing to continue to work with the editor to improve the quality of this article if my concerns are being addressed. I will put this on hold to observe such progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now pleased to pass this article. I would hope that if this article advances to WP:FAC it would find more detailed sources regarding the summary of the movie.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Inconvenient_Truth/GA2&oldid=345207954"