Talk:Homophobia (film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
1a 
Review pending 2d concerns. 1b The lede includes a link for $ but it just leads to dollar. Which dollar? The US isn't the only country to use this word and symbol. We have a Canadian dollar and the Aussies have one too. Per MOS:PLOT, the plot shouldn't have citations; the bit about response at the end can be moved to Release, referring to "the viewer" breaks the WP:INUNIVERSE, and the actor names are redundant to the Cast section. The intentions for the ending belong in Production. Also, linking to common dictionary terms such as vomiting and cigarette seems inappropriate when you could link to Austrian Armed Forces. Surprised we don't have a Austria–Hungary border to link to. Background and Production sections can be merged. Credits section isn't typically done.
-
2a
"shot in the woods outside" could easily be "in the forested area on the exterior""explaining why they wanted to be part of the project" could easily be "stating why they wished to join the cast"- "the title is written in two distinct fonts to highlight the film-specific interpretation of the term."- this isn't very clear as it is
"["had been converted into a space for art projects" could easily be "had been repurposed to host films and other art productions""to join a Facebook forum, where they could offer online feedback on the film's progress" could easily be "visit a Facebook forum, where they could review the ongoing production and make suggestions"
Thoroughly referenced
2b Major publications are used
2c. |
|
-
3a.
Article is quite short, though for a minor short film this can be expected. Covers the main bases (plot, production, release, bits of reception here and there), and controversy
3b. Not a lot off-topic.
4. No real POV issues detected
5. No edit wars taking place
6. Poster is attributed, but screenshot is claimed as fair use without really serving as anything but decoration
- @Ribbet32: Hi there! Thank you very much for taking this on review! I believe I've ammended everything you've pointed out apart from a few things. There is still one ref in the "Plot" section, as it cites the view of Vangardist on the film's setting. Moving on, I've linked "military camp" to Austrian Armed Forces; is that what you wanted? Furthermore, I don't know how to write the thing with the film-specific interpretation in another way, and can you help me with the "Credits" section? Best regards and thanks again; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Cartoon network freak: What is a "film-specific interpretation" of the word "homophobia"? Also, is that really 2 different fonts? It looks like the same font to me. How would using 2 different fonts make a point about the interpretation of the word?
- With the credits section, I'd just move the ref to the main infobox and for the producers/editor/cinematographer. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: In reply, I've added the ref from the "Credits" section to the infobox, and I've just removed the "film-specific interpretation thing", as it doesn't make any sense even after reading the magazine article a few more times. Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Cartoon network freak: The credits section needs to be removed- the ref is what I suggested could be salvaged from that section. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: In reply, I've added the ref from the "Credits" section to the infobox, and I've just removed the "film-specific interpretation thing", as it doesn't make any sense even after reading the magazine article a few more times. Thanks; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: Hi there! Thank you very much for taking this on review! I believe I've ammended everything you've pointed out apart from a few things. There is still one ref in the "Plot" section, as it cites the view of Vangardist on the film's setting. Moving on, I've linked "military camp" to Austrian Armed Forces; is that what you wanted? Furthermore, I don't know how to write the thing with the film-specific interpretation in another way, and can you help me with the "Credits" section? Best regards and thanks again; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Criteria 2 review Vangardist ref is missing fields |title=Project Homophobia: A Progressive Way to Make Movie |last=Nolte |first=Astrid . Will have to split the Vangardist ref into multiple footnotes to include page numbers The "hyper-masculine" quote is missing |p=84. "abrupt and gloomy" bit does not seem to appear in the Vangardist source- please provide a page number if it does. "Motivational" casting bit is missing |p=87. "Search engine" quote is missing |p=88. Canon EOS C300 is missing |p=87. $10,000 is missing |p=87. "dynamic Facebook" is missing |p=88. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: Hi again! I've added the page numbers as you requested; everything I named in the article was included in the issue. The "abrupt and gloomy" ending part was taken from another ref; fixed that now! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, and happy winter solstice! Ribbet32 (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ribbet32: Hi again! I've added the page numbers as you requested; everything I named in the article was included in the issue. The "abrupt and gloomy" ending part was taken from another ref; fixed that now! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)