Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you. Willing to work with you to get it into shape. I guess just preemptively, I firmly believe that naming all of the references in the film is very important to this film and on the same level as the cast list or the plot outline. There are some critics who talk about these references and their importance in the film, a few are referenced in the article. I could add more quotes or references from critics and film theorists to back that up if needed. Basically, this is more of an experimental film than a narrative (although technically its both), so I really don't think its trivial to list the references made in the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm going to have to first read over: (1) the Peer review (2) the first Good Article review and (3) the 2nd Good Article review -- and see if all of the recommendations raised in those prior three forms of review have since been successfully addressed by changes made to the article before it was again nominated for a 3rd review here. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't understand one reviewers request for the Quote Boxes, so I'd need help with that if it really is necessary. I'm skeptical about not being able to list a cast member without having the character they played, but if its necessary I can add "uncredited" (although its technically original research). Some of it has been trimmed, but if necessary more can be trimmed. I don't really think that the top ten list is too long, but it can be trimmed if needed. Otherwise the previous reviewer made mistakes, and I've already mentioned my desire to discuss the importance of the "References to other works" section in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Also, I can't find it, but there was a "Did you know?" review as well if you wanted to read over that and know where to look for it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)~~ Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Goodbye to Language. And technically the 2nd GA assessment wasn't really an assessment, it was more my mistake in attempting to get a second opinion on the first assessment and not knowing exactly where to make that request.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now the 3rd review total for the article, will stay standing in the history, as the 2nd GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Also, I was very annoyed after the first assessment because at that time the GA nominations were clogged up and it took five months for the assessment to take place, after which the nomination was quickly closed before I could address any of the issues or politely point out some mistakes in the review. Thank you for your prompt review and I assure you I have every intention of being civil here.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, good to hear! My pleasure! I'll do my best to do a point-by-point review based on all of the WP:Good article criteria, so either way it turns out, hopefully you'll have some good ideas on how to further work on Quality improvement for the article in the future. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stability assessment

Article edit history upon inspection shows stability going back at least 3 months. No issues here.
Article talk page history shows similar stability upon inspection. No issues here.

Next, on to Image review. — Cirt (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Adieu au Langage poster.png - Great job on fair use rationale here, nicely done. Y
File:Nyon street on the shore of lake Geneve.jpg - image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image review there upon my assessment checks out okay. Y
File:Jacquesellul.jpg - not detailed enough fair use rationale. Zero fair use rationale given for this article itself. Compare with that for the image poster, above, and how much more detailed that one is. Also -- it could be possible to attempt to contact this person's representatives to obtain a free-use photo, perhaps? Not done.

One image needs to be addressed, as noted, above. Please explain, below. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I substituted the third image with a different image of Ellul that the copyright holder uploaded. Would that be enough or should I add fair use info to the image's page in Commons?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, that's not how Commons works. All images on Commons must be free-use licensed, per commons:COM:L. — Cirt (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to write that I didn't explain the new image well enough, but I see that you've already found and cropped it. I was thinking that because the copyright holder uploaded it as a Creative Commons image that it would be ok to use in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, that's fine. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of adding a fourth image: one of the illustrated depictions of parallax available in Commons. Do you think that would be helpful to the article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit tangential. — Cirt (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not GA at this time

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Copyvio concerns as noted by Copvyio Detector, below -- at over seventy (70) percent confidence. Problems with MOS:LEAD and WP:FILMPLOT and WP:MOSFILM as noted at 2nd GA Review at Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA2. Problems with WP:IINFO as noted at 1st and 2nd GA Reviews. Problems with structural flow. The References to other works sect needs to be removed outright or significantly trimmed -- it reads like bragging about something, promotional, and POV. Top film lists and awards - sect seems completely unencyclopedic, especially in the way it is presented like a list of Who's Who, again, comes across as bragging about something. Significant, serious work is needed by an outside, previously uninvolved editor or multiple editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I agree with comments at Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1 that said the lede intro sect was a bit long. I agree with analysis at Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1 that there are too many obtuse references to trivial material in multiple locations. There are seven (7) blockquotes or quoteboxes that are all very very large. These should all be removed or perhaps keep one or two only with one sentence in the quote, tops.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checklinks tool linked to from GA Toolbox shows at least thirty (30) problem links or dead links. This could hopefully be fixed by archiving these to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate. Link problem defined as - any entry with Checklinks tool with any value other than "0" or "200" or even "200" with a comment next to it.
	2b. 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).	Normally we don't need much in the way of citations for fictional plot synopsis. But in this case the reader comes across feeling as if points are being pushed via the Plot synopsis here. Best to rewrite that entire sect, relying upon secondary sources, rather than primary. The large blockquote in the Synopsis sect is a violation of WP:NOR as dependent on a primary source, and unencyclopedic as it does not belong in that particular sect anyways.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Placing comments about Copyvio here. Earwig's Copyvio Detector linked to at top of GA Toolbox shows for link analysis "Violation Possible 71.5% confidence" and for search engine analysis "Violation Possible 43.5% confidence". The latter is troublesome, but the former is a significant, serious problem. Article needs to be gone over by previously uninvolved editors and also have quotations trimmed, removed, and/or paraphrased. Copyvio Detector result should ideally be below 30 percent confidence for all sources cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Production sect does not appear to follow WP:MOSFILM. See a better example of sect breakdown at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I agree with the peer review at "A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film? I'd think one or two would suffice. Same with Themes - I can't imagine that much has really been written about this film to justify a section rivaling/exceeding what the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Kerouac, Charlotte Bronte, Luo Guanzhong, and the Beatles would get." This still seems apt. Perhaps less so, but the depth with which the article goes on and on to other references, etc, is overkill here and therefore is a problem with NPOV issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is not neutral. Article comes across as promotional in tone. Reads a bit like a hagiography. Will in the future need significant read-through and copy-editing from multiple editors previously-uninvolved with both the article and the topic.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per above, no issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Per above, no issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Per above, no issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately, not GA at this time. It appears there was a woefully inadequate job to make a serious attempt to address concerns raised in the Peer Review, the 1st GA Review, and the 2nd GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations before going for another 4th GA Review

Quite sorry to say that, unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time.

I sincerely hope that the recommendations from the GA Review, above, will be helpful to editors in the future to further work on the Quality improvement process.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:

Go over every single point raised from all four (4) prior reviews -- the Peer review, 1st GA Review, 2nd GA Review, and now 3rd GA Review. Do your best to address all of them. Make a noted numbered list in a new section on the article's talk page explaining how you have attempted to do so for each recommendation from all the prior reviews.
Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality.
While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]