Talk:Kill the Irishman/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
~~See other comment 3 below~~

C. No original research:
~~See other comments 1 and 4 below~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
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:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Criterion 1

Kill the Irishman was in development hell for over a decade The term "development hell" is jargon and should be taken out of the lead as it isn't easily understood. It also isn't the term used in the source cited so it may be original research
~~Cleanup tag at the top is definitely still valid. The lead should cover the reception of the film as well. See WP:LEAD.~~
This still needs to be addressed.
Still needs fixing
Has been fixed Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Danny refuses and Licavoli places a contract on Danny’s life. What does "place a contract" mean? Not everyone will be familiar with that term
Reid said this galvanized him into action, and it was a common occurrence in Hollywood. This is awkwardly worded in context. You may want to think about rewriting it.
Tommy Reid did extensive research "extensive" here feels a bit out of line with WP:PEACOCK
Tommy Reid began to accept the possibility that his movie would never be made, This clause is very strange. It may be worth rewriting that whole section as well.
"bankable" director What does that mean? You should explain that in the article.
incidences is this supposed to be incidents or coincidences?
A number of incidences "a number of" lacks precision and should be reworded to reflect the number of examples you have.
This has been noted by many critics This term lacks precision. Let readers come to their own conclusions as to whether the number of critics constitute "many". See WP:WEASEL.
Reid said the FBI, they wanted to make sure the mafia was not being glorified. Is this a quotation? Either way it's awkwardly worded and should be reworded.
~~The background research section also feels poorly worded as half of it is simply "she said" sentences.~~
Many of the dates given... This paragraph should be above the section heading on Alex Birns as it has nothing to do with Alex Birns' death.
~~Home Video should be a subsection of Release and Reception.~~

Other Comments

In reality, although many rumors surround Art Sneperger’s death, it remains unsolved. Some investigators speculated that radio interference caused the bomb to detonate early; others speculated that Greene killed him after learning he was going to become an informant. Source cited does not back this up. See WP:OR.
This sentence is still in the article without a source.
This sentence is now sourced, but by a mafia wiki (that doesn't cite any sources) which is an unreliable source per the reliable sources policy: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media [like]...open wikis...are largely not acceptable.
Sources are good, but the inside St. Louis source doesn't say Greene was never charged, just that he was never proven to have done it. I changed the wording from "never charged with Sneperger's murder" to "never proved to have killed Sneperger." If you find a source that says Greene wasn't charged, you can change it back, but I'll list it as a GA with the wording change I made. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keith (Jones) is killed After the first time, you don't need to put the actor's names in parentheses.
Oh no! I think you misunderstood me here. The general style I tend to see is "...Character (Actor)..." at first mention, and every mention afterwards is just "...character...". So what I meant here is that you were following the style of only putting the actor's name at first mention, but then at this line, you had the actor's name again. It's fine as it is right now, you don't have to go in and change them all.
Stevenson stated that “it looks like a $30 million movie”, “which is a testament to everybody involved”. I'm not sure why a primary source is being used here, particularly since they would have a bias when talking about how the film looks. See WP:WPNOTRS. An ellipsis should be used instead of a comma, but that part is optional.
Although the film was generally well received, its box office performance was disappointing. The source doesn't say it's disappointing. I'm assuming this is original research or non-neutral point of view and should probably be removed unless a source describes it as disappointing.
This was revised to state Although the film was generally well received, it was unsuccessful at the box office. The source however still doesn't say either. While it may seem to you and I that the box office result was unsuccessful, if a verifiable and reliable source doesn't say that, it is original research and can't be included.
While I feel bad for harping on this one sentence, I think it's important to improve the article. While removing the "unsuccessful" part, it still contains the "generally well received" which is also kind of weasel-y. I think if it were properly attributed, like with the rotten tomatoes score or metacritic rating, it would be more acceptable (I think metacritic described it as "mixed to average"). But the source cited doesn't justify the "generally well received" description.
Good Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Optional) The paragraph starting with Licavoli is made the Don of Cleveland; isn't very compellingly written. It is very subject-verb, subject-verb. I recommend rewriting it so it's a little more compelling.

This might have been changed a while ago and I just overlooked it, but it's good now Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Optional) While the GA Criteria don't require it, the plot section doesn't cite any sources, which is important as it may be original research.

Unfortunately, the revision to this needs work and is actually now a requirement. The problem is that the sources you cited are about the factual life of Danny Greene, not the plot of the movie. So the sources tell me that these are things that factually happened in the life of Danny Greene but not necessarily that they are factual things that happened in the movie. If this were an article about Danny Greene, the sources would be fine, but since this is an article about a movie about Greene, the sources need to be about the movie.

This seems to have been corrected though I'll need to look through the sources a bit more.

5. ^{Added 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)} I was giving the article a once over before passing it and noticed that the still of the car exploding did not have a fair use rationale for "respect for commercial opportunities". It was an easy enough fix, so I added one, but in the future you need to remember that non-free content need to fulfill all the criteria for use and you need to articulate that on the file page. Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results

On Hold for 10 days and may be extended depending on progress. To be quite honest, I feel like this article needs a good amount of work before I'm willing to promote it to GA status, which is partly why I gave 10 days instead of the usual 7. I think it can be done if the work is put into it. A lot of attention needs to be paid to WP:OR to make sure that sources actually support the information cited as there were a number of instances where statements weren't backed up by the sources provided. Feel free to ask me any questions or for clarification. Happy Editing! Wugapodes (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results after First Revision

Still On Hold A lot of progress has been made, and most of the criterion 1 concerns have been fixed. The lead still needs to be rewritten to cover the reception of the film and other important aspects of the article. Most importantly, however, is the sourcing. The two examples I mentioned above are still in the article without a change of source, and the sources that were added to the Plot section are about Greene's biography not the plot of the movie. Wugapodes (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Results after Second Revision

Still On Hold The lead still needs to be rewritten to include a summary of the release and reception of the film so that the cleanup tag can be removed. The two other aspects still have some problems that I covered.

Results after Third Revision

Pass I think this version passes the GA bar, however I think the next thing to do in improving the article is similar to what the last reviewer said, you should take it to the Guild of Copy Editors to really tighten up the prose as the suggestions I made were the bare minimum to make it clear and concise per the GA criteria, and there is a lot more that can be done. A general note is to be wary of unreliable sources, puffery, and original research which came up a lot in this review. With movies and mobsters, all of those can easily become big problems and can cause it to be delisted. Now don't take this as a reason to stop improving the article, there's still a lot of room to work. The article's come very far, so keep up the hard work! Wugapodes (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA status clarification

Hi Wugapodes, you said that the article has passed the GA criteria (but can still do with improving), but I have just received a message on my talk page saying the article has failed to meet the criteria. Is this a mistake? or have you reverted your decision?. Thanks. Metal121, April 03, 2015. 20:25 (GMT).

That is weird...I think it might have something to do with the previous review. I'll ask around to see how to fix that. Wugapodes (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Metal121: I asked Dom497 and he thinks it is because of the {{GA}} and {{FailedGA}} both on the page, and that {{Article history}} should have been used. I've fixed the problem. Wugapodes (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]