Jump to content

Talk:An Unforgettable Summer/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing



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

Reviewer: JZCL (talk · contribs) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I will review within a week. JZCL 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA
A good article is—
  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Initial comments

[edit]
  • Good inline citations
  • No cast list?!?!?
  • Couple of minor issues - explained below

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Fine Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Make sure the citations go in ascending order, e.g. instead of [4][2][3][5] make it goes [2][3][4][5]. Also, web article titles should not be in italics and book titles should be in italics - make sure all of this is cleaned up. One disambiguation link in last paragraph - Before the Rain. On hold On hold
     Not done The title of the film is in italics in references (An Unforgettable Summer and Un été inoubliable). Books should not be in italics. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Good - at least one reference per paragraph. Would maybe be nice to see a few more references on some of the longer paragraphs. Fine. On hold On holdPass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Fine on the face of it - but look here - there are several websites which cannot be connected to. This brings down verifiability. All problems solved Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Nothing obvious Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Good coverage of the plot, needs a section on cast; production section is a bit short - it would be best with subsections on inspiration, casting, filming, score and rating (or mix a couple of them together). Preferable subsection on "Critical reception". Budget and box office? On hold On hold
    (b) (focused) Fine Pass Pass
     Not done It did not go to box office, and the budget is unknown. Not mixing the sections together, or else it would be even shorter. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Absolutely fine unless there is any negative critical response out there. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No problems. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Nice pictures. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) If there are any legally usable images of the actual film itself, that would be nice. Great Pass Pass 
===Comments===
  1. Divide the plot production section into additional subsections; suggested headings above.
    ☒N Not done and not likely to be done I have never seen a plot split into subsections, not even in any FAs. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still  Not done. This would make the sections to be made up of short paragraphs, which looks horrible. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fix dead URLs from link above.
     Done Changed one.  Not done I will not change the other, because it needs membership to be viewed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Needs section for cast list.
     Not done Not required by GA criteria, and it also looks messy and lists ruin articles (in my opinion). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Add additional details in infobox such as budget and box office.
     Not done Both of these are unknown. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Probably best to have more than one or two references for the longer paragraphs unless the reference really does have all of the information of the paragraph.
     Not done. Which it does. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are the 5 most important things to deal with in my opinion; I'm putting this article on hold. Feel free to disagree with anything I've put. JZCL 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry antique - I meant that the production section should be split into additional sections, not the plot - it just seemed a bit short. See in the table for the subsections I recommended. As for cast list - if you really don't want to, you don't have to; I just thought that it would be easier for someone to access the details. As for the budget, I couldn't find that either (sorry) but you can find the box office here. As for the last point, you're probably right. The place that I was referring to was the last paragraph of the plot section, which doesn't really need inline citations at all (though great that you've got them).
Might have to resort to some of the more minor points:
  • Make sure that the citations always go in ascending order.
  • Are there any usable images of the film itself? It's fine if there aren't, but it might be nice.
  • Would it good to have a subsection on critical reception in the impact and legacy section?
  • If you can find it, the music list would be good.
  • Rating available? (PG etc.)
Sorry I gave you a few bad first comments - hopefully not too much criticism can be found here. JZCL 20:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Pass by JZCL 19:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:An_Unforgettable_Summer/GA1&oldid=1038142420"