Talk:Jacques Rivette/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 06:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Generally, mention the years in which the films were released in all sections of the article (For example, Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne — Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne (1945) and The Rules of the Game — The Rules of the Game (1939)).
Replace reference no 4 with a better one as it does not mention if Rivette was educated there.
"and sat next to Godard for several months before the latter introduced himself." — Sounds vague. What does it mean here? Better clarify this.
"the silent film was shot in the summer of 1958 and sound added the following year" — better to rephrase it as "the silent film was shot in the summer of 1958 and sound was added the following year".

OK, I think I've taken care of all of this unless I overlooked a film or two.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

Wikilink "French Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church in France", and write it as per the latter.
Wikilink "Minister of Information" to "Minister of Information (France)".
Wikilink "Minister of Culture" to "Ministry of Culture (France)".
"with the publicity helping make it Rivette's only hit film." — Rephrase it as "with the publicity helping make it Rivette's only hit film to that point."

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"With each film revolving around two female characters, part one was to be a love story, part two a fantasy, part three an adventure and part four a musical comedy." — Would look better if you rephrased this.
"but was never distributed." — Is this sourced?

Tweaked that sentence a little. Double checked the Wakeman book, yes it is sourced. Also, I don't quite agree with another editors recent changing on the main picture. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much with the rest. Nice job on the article. I'll perform a source review tomorrow. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

This link is a redirect to the current awards ceremony. Do find a substitute.

I'll look at the rest tomorrow. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail:

The sources are good. Nice work on the article, Deoliveirafan. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, always appreciate working with you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]