Talk:Eighth Grade (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 00:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Review

• The R rating inspiring criticism is mentioned in the lead but not really supported in the body
  • In Release: "a decision critics decried for denying teenage viewers a film with positive messages" - 3 refs
• While the LEAD does a good job of summarizing the article, the writing isn't as strong as the rest of it. Would encourage you to take a pass at it and see what you can do.
• First time doing a film GA review so apologies if I ask any "rookie" questions or make any suggestions that go against conventions (though I have looked up and read around prior to doing this review).
• Really strong plot summary. Just one thought: She makes a video announcing that she intends to stop making videos, as she feels unfit to give advice when she is not even able to follow her own. feels somewhat simplistic? Like part of it is deeper self-criticism at not being the person she pretends to be in the videos.
  • Good point. Note I didn't write the Plot.
• The source lists 9 actors but only 7 appear on this page. Why were the other two excluded?
  • Added
• Professor Julianna W. Miner, writing in 2018 about Eighth Grade, reflects that 22% of teenagers were struggling with depression and anxiety, and teenage girls were committing suicide at higher rates in 2015 than they were in the previous 40 years. Facts about anxiety in general, as opposed to how it plays in the movie, seem to fall outside the scope of this article, though there are certainly other pieces of information at that source which would be appropriate to cite.
• This COATRACK issue repeats itself a couple of times. Exploring the themes is perfect and what it should be doing, but it needs to always be done so in relation to this film. This is handled perfectly in the nude selfie paragraph - so more like that.
  • With Reid especially as it's unclear that she's expert enough to be a RS with-in an opinion piece
  • Texting stats
  • Link between social media and anxiety
    • These are all pieces written about Eighth Grade and are legitimate analysis of the film, as background info and context. They would be out of scope in a Production section, or if a Wikipedia editor was synthesizing from a source that didn't have to do with Eighth Grade, but various authors drew on this in discussing the Themes. Also, the Baltimore Sun is a legitimate source.

The Baltimore Sun is a reliable source. That does not mean that all opinion pieces in the Sun are equally reliable. Given that Reid is writing an Op-Ed her expertise, or not, is relevant in deciding how, if at all, to include information. In general the sources are RS and merit inclusion to support writing about the themes - but the statistics they cite belong in the articles about those topics not this topic. To use another article of yours there aren't stats about remarriage in The Royal Tenenbaums for a good reason. Again it seems to me like the correct balance is achieved in the nude selfie sentences. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

The good reason is that none of the analysis of The Royal Tenenbaums discussed remarriage statistics. A few brief mentions of stats- which are in the references, because those authors believe this reality is reflected in the film- doesn't breach WP:COATRACK. The stat's aren't the focus of the article. They're just legit analysis.

I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this one because it is at the core of one of the criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

While my concerns about this remain given the second opinion I have marked this resolved except for the issue about Reid being RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• Gleiberman should be wikilinked and probably worth noting he's writing in Variety. In general the article is very inconsistent about when it names the critic and when it names the org
  • Linked, but the "consistency" would be very repetitive.

Fair enough. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• I run into this same problem when writing but this article has some words to avoid that are synonyms for said (see WP:SAID)
  • Addressed a few.
• I don't understand what point is being made with "After deciding to focus on a female protagonist in a story about anxiety, Burnham considered girls "don't know what to do with their bodies" "
  • Oops, cleaned up
• Would suggest putting all of the truth or dare coverage in themes in the same paragraph
  • Joined
• This source seems to not support what it's citing. What it's citing would need a textual basis anyway and I don't remember the film well enough to say if it does or doesn't cover sex education when she's learning about oral sex.
  • Wrap article states: "Kayla, an eighth grader, has never been in a situation like this, nor has she been prepared for how to deal with it, despite an earlier sex ed scene." This is all the Themes section is citing it for. The sex ed scene in the classroom is different from the later scene where Kayla looks up oral sex on YouTube.
• It seems from sources that Burnham has also made the Me too connection?
  • He said " hopefully it dovetails" when asked, but was clear he certainly wasn't thinking about it when making the film.
• How is this different than what has been covered before it? Journalist Anna Silman observed Kayla's "clearly uncomfortable body language and verbal protestations".
  • Clarified
• I'm surprised that there's so little relative coverage of her relationship with her father. I'm also surprised there's not thematic coverage of friendship especially because it's hinted at elsewhere in the section.
  • I was too.
• I removed part of the first sentence of development for clarity
• Feels like it should explicitly mentioning YouTube rather than the generic videos for Burnhams background?
  • OK
• Probably worth mentioning why he decided to focus on Kayla after the initial drafts. Also it's not clear from the source that there were actually completed drafts with the multiple characters so that should also probably be tweaked.
  • Moved up the explanation to clarify and tweaked
• My recollection is that the character mentioned in "a scene where a character theorizes access to social media at an early age molded the generation's minds" is Olivia. If that's right should just name her rather than using the generic character
  • It was Trevor actually.
• Not sure which meaning of found is being used for Burnham found Josh Hamilton to have a "dad vibe" Found as in discovered or found as in felt?
  • Tweaked

Doesn't seem tweaked? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Barkeep49 I was led to believe it was the use of "found" that confused you? It was changed to "considered"

You're right. Apologies on this one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

[1] Ribbet32 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Gabe sentence probably needs reordering to make clear who he is before his quote
  • Tweaked
• If I hadn't seen the movie, I don't think I'd have understood the part about how texting is portrayed in the movie
  • Clarified
• I mean most films zoom at some point. I think the reference is saying that Burnham especially likes the technique.
  • Source: "Filmmaker: There’s some great zooms in the movie. You don’t see them all that often any more."

I'm not disputing the source, I'm saying the one word doesn't actually summarize what that says. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Changed.

• There were literally 8 people in the car during the truth or dare scene?
  • Yes
• Did editing start six months after shooting or last for six months after shooting?
  • Changed.

I'm not seeing it. Was it changed or removed? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Barkeep49 It was changed to report on the end of the editing process [2] Ribbet32 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• The R rating is mentioned in two different sections. Suggest merging this content.
  • It deals with editing, but fair enough
• It's almost April 26. Any more information available about international release?
  • Can't really report on releases that haven't happened or been announced yet.
• After it goes wide we should only have one box office total. The article text and infobox also don't have the same totals.
  • Matched the totals
• See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response for how to use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic
• Forbes contributors are not RS and should be removed as critic. In fact fewer critics all around seems to be the way FAs go.
  • That depends. A film little-seen or little-reviewed can be comprehensive describing few reviews. On the other hand, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) was removed from GA because its Reception section was judged too skimpy.
  • Di Placido is a notable enough critic to be referenced by various published authors [3] [4] [5] As a notable critic he's certainly reliable for his own opinion.

Fair enough on Di Placido, however Fantastic Beasts had other issues besides its reception section that were more troubling in my reading of that re-review. Having looked at several more FA - which should function as our best examples of how Wikipedia articles are composed - I stand by the comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I don't know what other articles you're looking at. A quick look at other film GAs show Critical reception sections larger, sometimes substantially larger, in word count- La La Land (film), Call Me by Your Name (film), Spectre (2015 film), and an equal number of refs.

First those are all GA rather than FA - I explicitly was looking at FA as a guide for what the standards should be. But let's roll with your examples. 8th Grade has, by my count, 18 different critics cited (not counting the social media reactions). La La has 12 and includes both longer quotes and doubles up some. Call Me has 13 and again some longer coverage rather than all 1 sentence hits. Spectre does indeed have the same number - actually more at 19. To me La La and to a lesser extent Call me are avoiding the problem I pointed out here. By way of what I'm talking about see Loev which has 10 (and is from my looking the most recent promoted FA having happened in Feb '18). Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• It had a leading number of nominations or the second most nominations at the Spirit Awards?
  • Both; "a leading" rather than "the leading"

In that case it's puffery just say it had the second most nominations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

The fact that it was leading in nominations was in the source so not my "puffery". But changed.

Discussion

Will Ribbet32 or another interested editor confirm that they wish to go through the GA review process for this article? If so I am happy to conduct the review - though I have a couple of other things ahead of it on my "to-do list" and might not get to it before I'll have limited availability for a week beginning April 13. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course I'm interested, thanks Ribbet32 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Great. I really do hope to get to this in the next couple of days. As a note my process is to do a complete read of the article and then to go back and do a thorough reading, also checking sources, at which point I'll start to leave review comments. It can take me a couple of days to finish that, but you should feel free to start responding/editing as I go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Congrats on a really well done article. Thoughts and suggestions listed above. As I noted earlier in the week I am going to have limited availability for a bit so I will not be able to respond to any questions, thoughts, or changes you might make until approximately April 22. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49 Ribbet32 (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Thanks for your patience. I've struck out the parts above that I think have been addressed already. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Second opinion

Seeking the second opinion of an experienced GA editor: Please see the discussion above about the quoting of statistics and the like in the Themes section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm happy to give a second opinion. I saw the film yesterday and thought it was exceptional. I've read through the article and this review in its entirety and I am actually satisfied both by the quoting of statistics and the length of the review section. The stats are all mentioned in reviews about the film—I don't think it's an undue focus and it's important context for the culture in which the movie was written/produced. I would be more critical of the review section if this was an FA candidate, but for GA I think it's definitely sufficient in style and length, though I have a couple of nitpicks to make. Here are my comments on the article:

• "He says that she fills him with pride and he could never be sad about her, at which she is relieved." – Rather than "she is relieved", I'd say "she hugs him tightly" or similar.
  • Changed.
• Is ref #39 missing a URL?
  • I cited directly from the release, but added a link
• The UK and Irish release should be in past tense, as it has now happened. (I saw the film in the UK!) IMDb says that the film was released in February in Belgium and the Netherlands; though it's not a reliable source, perhaps you can find sources about this.
  • Updated and updated.
• "She described "Gucci" as a tic saying other habits" – There should be a comma after "tic".
  • Changed.
• "We cringe for Kayla" – Not sure this quote adds anything.
  • Changed.
• "writing it is neutral on the Internet" – I don't follow what this means.
  • Changed.
• The fourth paragraph in Themes (beginning "According to critic Kyle Buchanan") doesn't strike me as particularly informative. Are there any more interesting critics' comments on the Aiden / fellatio / naked images content?
  • Added to this.
• "Dissenting, Richard Brody in The New Yorker" – Remove "Dissenting", as it follows a critical comment with roughly the same opinion.
  • They're both dissenters according to Rotten Tomatoes, but Changed.

After these issues are addressed, I'm happy to pass the article (or recommend that Barkeep49 do it if they want to do the honours). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

(Also, I should have said: I've made 10 edits to the article but they were mostly uncontroversial changes, and I've not contributed substantially to the article in either prose or referencing.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review Bilorv Ribbet32 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The requested second opinion was regarding the Themes section. I think Barkeep raises a valid point. In its present form, aside from the statistics issue, the Themes section looks alot like the Critical reception section. Lots of opinions one after the other. What is the theme, or major themes, if that is the purpose of this section? Is it, coming-of-age in the age of mobile hand-helds? It might help to id what you think the main themes are for this section in so many words. As a minor comment, the sentence at the start of the plot section "Meanwhile, Mark, her single father, struggles to connect with her and break her reliance on social media", might look better as the shortened, "Meanwhile, Mark, her single-parent father, struggles to connect with her". CodexJustin (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how you want the Theme section to look (and it's a vital part of media articles and we'd be breaking 3a to omit it). Critical commentary is precisely what belongs there. Take an article I helped to get to FA, San Junipero. The Analysis section (the analogous version of Themes) is a bunch of stuff taken from critical reviews, just like the Critical reception is. The difference in both San Junipero and Eighth Grade is pretty obvious: Themes/Analysis is about the topics explored and Critical reception is about whether critics thought the piece was well-executed or valuable. As for the themes in Eighth Grade, the lead summarises: "Themes include heavy use of social media, mental health in Generation Z and sexuality and consent." The Themes section has paragraphs on precisely these topics. (Some even have topic sentences e.g. "The film explores anxiety.") — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 21:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As I am a supporter of both the film and of this article, I am adding a very short comment to Bilorv above. The current lead section identifies the theme as: "The coming-of-age story follows the life and struggles of an eighth-grader, played by Elsie Fisher, during her last week of classes before graduating to high school. She struggles with social anxiety but produces vlogs giving life advice." That does not match up exactly with the 3-part themes analysis section which Bilorv has just identified. The single theme lead section of "social anxiety" should be ironed out with the 3-part themes section as just identified by Bilorv. Nice film and nice article. See my comment above about adding the phrase "single-parent" to the Plot section. CodexJustin (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Bilrov and CodexJustin for their thoughts and second/third reviews. I have updated the review above with those items as completed. This leaves the question of Reid and the number of reviews (which Bilrov did offer an unsolicited opinion on but for which I maintain my position which is why I did not ask for a thought in the call for a second review). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Sorry for my absence, it has been insane at work. Please don't close the review. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ribbet32 thanks for the update. I always ping a person before closing for inactivity and am happy to leave this open for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 I just came back to work on this to find the Plot and edit history was deleted despite the copyright investigation coming clean. I've left a message on the admin's talk page. Not sure where this will go from here. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ribbet32 looks like Diannna undid and it's back so I would say no roadblock there fortunately (and I apologize as I admittedly hadn't done COPYVIO and picture use stuff yet and so I might have caught it as a concern earlier). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Bilorv I've made Bilorv's changes and removed the Reid reference, even though this was subject to the Baltimore Sun's editorial process, so I question the need for removal. As for the number of reviews, "I maintain my position"- citing a number of featured articles isn't convincing when this isn't FAC, there's no basis for cutting in Wikipedia:Good article criteria and given what happened to Fantastic Beasts. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• All of my criticisms have been addressed and I believe the article meets the GA criteria, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to close the review so I am leaving this up to Barkeep49. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  Bilorv Sorry for my slowness following your last response. I've been thinking carefully about whether I am willing to fail this GA over my concerns which remain - I've had this article open to edit every day since May 10 and simply hadn't. However, that's not really fair to you. Ultimately I think my concerns remain but since this is good article not great article it should pass. I will close this out shortly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)