Jump to content

Talk:Pieces of a Woman/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • Improve the non-free use rationale for the poster with this template.
  • "Little Lamb" should go before "Bron Studios" per the billing block.
  • "Proton Cinema" should also be added after "Bron Studios" per the billing block.
  • Add a serial comma after Jimmie Fails.
  • That last paragraph feels like it could be expanded a bit.
  • Do you have suggestions? The critical section is already summary style, and the stand-out response is obviously Kirby's nominations for all major awards, so I don't see what to add without being too much. Kingsif (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the critical response section mentioned criticism for the plot but overall gave praise to the acting, so I would mention that reviews were generally positive while also noting the criticism to fully summarize that section. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot and cast

[edit]
  • The plot section is under 700 words so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
  • Per the American English template, change "centimetres" to "centimeters".
  • That's about it with the plot. There's also no issues with #Cast.

Production

[edit]
  • "as well as taking elements" sounds weird. reword
  • Changed to "incorporating fictionalized aspects of"; now reads It is based on their play, as well as incorporating fictionalized aspects of the trial of Hungarian midwife Ágnes Geréb. Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. "as well as" still feels unnecessary. Maybe change that part to "while also". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Usually when people adapt works, they do it directly, so adding something else should stand apart. But I'll just stick "and" in. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma after "Hungarian National Film Fund".
  • "which explore" → "that explore"
Maybe consider "noted that films exploring grief". Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, done that. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma after "ten minutes long".
  • Add a comma after "for example".
Just a question but are you adding comments before making your edits? 23:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Before hitting save, usually people aren't so quick. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]
  • "afterwards" → "afterward" (American English)
  • "at Toronto" → "at TIFF" (the event) or "in Toronto" (location)

Reception

[edit]
  • I recommend using the "cite RT" and "cite MC" templates for #Critical_response.
  • The accolades table should be improved for accessibility "sort keys", captions, and "scope=row".
  • I can read up on that, but besides above-average rowspan crosses (and rowspan is accepted in awards tables, unlike filmographies), a screenreader should be able to parse it just fine. Kingsif (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The part "(Also for The World to Come)" is unnecessarily small. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it will look just as awkward at full size until awards tables get a "notes" column, especially since accessibility doesn't like line breaks in tables. But we can live with it. Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  • There is one source from Next Best Picture (in #News) that can be archived.
Changing between Deadline Hollywood and Deadline feels inconsistent, but having them all say Deadline wouldn't be a problem so I would suggest that instead. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I (still) can't see any that say Deadline Hollywood... if you do, please fix it! Kingsif (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are spaces in between "Film Music Reporter".
  • Mark sources from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark sources from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark all sources from The New Yorker with "|url-access=limited".
  • Mark sources from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
  •  Done above 4 - though I will point out that access is not limited for these using the archive links - and I don't know why you A. said "all", B. emphasized that for New Yorker when there was only one ref it needed adding too. Maybe you're being fun and snarky, but some of your comments seem to be, er, accusatory when there's no need for that in the first place, let alone when the issue is not as big as your comments suggest. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? Just wanted to state that since some were already marked. And they're not "issues", just small suggestions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason websites are credited as authors? If an author is missing from the source you can use the sfn tool "harvid" to create a citation using "website" and "year" instead and if there are several articles by the same person, you can also use the tool (example). Currently, there are also several citations missing authors altogether.
@Kingsif: Yes Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for Film Music Reporter also has the website as the author.
Well, Film Music Reporter is also the name of the website since it's not Film Music. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Changed the apostrophes, added "Reporter" to that ref (their socials don't include it, which is why I didn't before) Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
External links
  • Citing Rotten Tomatoes as an EL goes against WP:ELRC. However, there is a developing consensus to simply add "/reviews" to the RT code instead.

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pieces_of_a_Woman/GA1&oldid=1024331254"