Talk:The Decay of Fiction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EricEnfermero (talk · contribs) 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to review this article. I'll be back later this week with some feedback after I have the opportunity to read the article more closely. As a starting place, I notice that the lead section does not summarize the contents of each section in the body. More to come. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 06:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead needs to be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD, but the current sentence would be better split into two.

Y Expanded. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is better, but the lead doesn't mention anything from Reception, which is the most developed section of the article. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally favorable reviews" added. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The first sentence is a little confusing (with... by...) and most of the references can probably be removed from it for readability.

Y Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence should be rephrased to avoid an issue with close paraphrasing from the source; change Los Angles to Los Angeles.

Y Rephrased. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

To me, using a quote for the entire section is a little unusual. The link on the cited source doesn't lead where it should, so it's hard to tell how much of the original work was used for this. Even if the cited quote is only a small part of the original work (and therefore not a copyright issue), it explains the plot in abstractions that aren't very straightforward.

working on it... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, but the large quote is still out of place. The article doesn't have a ton of prose, and it already relies on lots of quotations. The other problem is the placement of the quote. It comes right after the part about the DVD/museum screening presentation, but I think that the quote refers to the movie in general. You might take a look to ensure that the quote is transcribed accurately. I noticed some punctuation missing. I can add that, but you might make sure that that's the only issue. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So... Do I remove it? I have addressed the transcribing issues mentioned. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be easiest. At a minimum, use less of it and incorporate it into the rest of the section. As is, it's almost like explaining the plot twice. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 05:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think the quality of the content will not decrease without the Blockquote, so I've gone ahead and removed it. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The section needs to be broken into paragraphs for readability.

Y Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sentences are unwieldy. For example, the second sentence could read, "Deborah Young of Variety wrote..."

Y Fixed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid "interpreting" the reviews (i.e. "mildly positive") unless the source actually comes to that conclusion.

Y Changed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After the sentence on Rosenbaum, the next three sentences start with "they". Are you referring to more than one editor or still just to Rosenbaum?

Y Fixed erroneous sentences. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Now I would work on the flow of this section. There's one very small paragraph and two much larger paragraphs. I'm not sure what the difference is between the paragraphs - how they are broken up. Are there other websites/reviews that assign a score (like Rotten Tomatoes) that you could add to the first paragraph. That might help to balance and bring organization to the section. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Added Rotten Tomatoes; balanced things up to allow for smoother readability. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for allowing me to review the article. Good work so far. I'd like to take another look after this initial feedback is addressed. I'm placing this nomination on hold for now. Thanks again! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that it took me a few days to respond to your corrections. I think we're getting closer to meeting the GA criteria. I know this is getting a little tiresome. I just want to make sure that we have a thorough article with good organization and prose. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Copyedits made by nominator and reviewer.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Nominator and reviewer completed fixes per WP:LEAD.
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.	One hyperlink tweaked to point to intended reference.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spot checks reveal that article's information is supported by citations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	One image, non-free, with fair use rationale listed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Promoting to GA status.

Thanks to the nominator and to the other editors who worked on the article. Future directions might include adding some information on casting and working on the flow and organization of the Reception section. As is, I think it meets the Good Article criteria. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 07:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]