Talk:From the Sky Down/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dream out loud. I have done some copy edits to start, and have some additional suggestions for prose amendments below that I didn't want to do myself as I want you to review them and make sure I'm not distorting the meaning. The prose is overall very good and does not need much more tweeking. Here's the items that need your input:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   • One sequence from the film recounts the improvization of the album's emblematic song "One" through the replaying of old recording tapes. Suggest "Development of the album's emblematic song "One" is recounted through the replaying of old recording tapes."Y
   • The band were... This should be "the band was", as the article otherwise uses American spelling and date conventions (two occurrences).Y
   • The band were filmed during a return visit to Hansa Studios in Berlin where the album was partly recorded would read better as "where parts of the album were recorded"Y
   • the film did not provide enough depth in covering the album How about "the film did not provide adequate in-depth coverage of the album"Y
   • The band did not demand any changes to the film but did request that it be shortened for length, which Guggenheim agreed to do. I think this sentence should be simplified and shortened. How about something like "The only request the band made was that the film should be shortened in length, and Guggenheim agreed"Y
   • The article is a bit over-reliant on quotations in my opinion, especially the Production section. Please consider paraphrasing a few of these quotes to help give the prose better flow.

   •  Done All the points raised except the paraphrasing work. I am not the nominator; just passed by and decided to contribute. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • In lieu of a Plot section, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film calls for a Synopsis section for documentaries. This is currently missing. Please add to the lead summarizing the new material once you've got it added.
   • There's some overlinking in the References section. Please link the sources only for the first occurrence.
   • Consider adding links to Rotten Tomatoes or other aggregate sites in the external links.

2. Sourcing:

   A. Provides references, with in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   • All links are functional; I corrected a couple of minor technical errors in the citation formatting. Sources are high-quality journals and books.

   B. Contains no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing:

   • Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing.

   C. No original research:

   • Thematically, it was a more introspective and personal record; it was darker, yet at times more flippant than the band's previous work. Please confirm this analysis comes from the cited source (Graham 2004) and is not the analysis of the Wikipedia editors.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   • Needs synopsis section

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The article is in very nice shape and needs only a few amendments to pass to GA-class. On hold for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Failing the nomination as the main concern, the lack of a synopsis section, has not been addressed. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)