Jump to content

Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

CGI

How about a section on CGI? How much CGI was there in the movie? One scene I wonder about was the plane landing scene in Amsterdam. How did they get that camera angle? Was it CGI?

Victor Engel (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


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. The article should be copyedited at the end of GA review.checkY
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The opening sentence meets WP:FILMLEAD requirements. The first paragraph and succeeding paragraphs in the lead section also. The text of the article follows the requirements of relevant manuals of style.
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. The article does provide references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources. The issues are:
  • Multiple citations are presented without authors specified.checkY
  • Several dead links.checkY
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. I haven't noticed any original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It is necessary to clarify that Okay was their important special word.checkY
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. The article is stable.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I think that the article is very near GA status. After a couple of non-resolved issues stipulated above are resolved (hopefully within a week) I will ask somebody from GOCE to copy edit the article. After the copy edit is completed I will pass the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Copy editing of the article is completed. I think that two cn tags and a couple of assertions which should be clarified are more of improvement opportunities than obstacles for reaching GA status, so I will promote this article to GA status. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

General remarks

  • Plenty of sources discuss a comparison between a book and a movie. Wouldn't it make sense to add some text about this comparisons (I apologize if I overlooked them in the text of the article)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)  Done
  • I don't want to impose my personal opinion. I might be wrong here. That is why it is necessary to achieve consensus grounded in common sense, sources and wikipedia policies. I don't propose to present judgement if movie or book is better, but to present a brief information if film closely follows the book or not, and to explain if there are some things that exist in the book, but not in the movie, etc... I think that if plenty of sources discuss this aspect I guess its probably important? If it is, then the article should address it to comply to criteria 3a of WP:GACR. Thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I proposed "a brief information", not a complete new section with a bullet list of differences which is too much and violate WP:FILMDIFF "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." A brief information (not bullet list) if film closely follows the book or not (with short explanation) is completely enough. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. English is not my native language, but I have impression that this addition should be copy edited and maybe additionally shortened. It is probably clever to leave copy editing for the end of the review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't read the book or saw the film, so I don't know what exactly to say about it. I just noticed it is one of the most discussed aspects of the film. Its on the T-shirts, shoes, notebooks,... so it probably is worth mentioning. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually it was the word used as the last word in the film, it was the word used as the last word of Augustus' letter to Hazel, and it was used by Hazel when she responded on hearing Gus' death. So probably that's why it is worth mentioning. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Notice: Because of unplanned trip I will probably not be able to continue and complete this review during next 4-5 days. When I return from the trip I will continue with the review. My preliminary opinion is that the article meets GA criteria, except probably the first one (it is necessary to be checked for grammar and general clarity of the prose) which should be easy to resolve with some help of some skilled editor, i.e. from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at the end of reviewing process.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many citations without information about the author of the source. Taking in consideration that in many cases the author is known and presented in the source, I think it should be easy to add information about the author to such citations and resolve this issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)checkY
  • MOS:LAYOUT says that external links "should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section." This film's pages at Metacritic, Rotten Tomato, Box Office Mojo and IMDb websites are already used as sources for the text of this article so they should not be duplicated in the External links section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC) checkY
C, is that request addressed to me? Thoughts below.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … …  … ps re above: I understand that IMDb should NOT be used as a source (but can be an external link). Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
NOTE Boone described the casting: "Over 250 girls read for the part, but it wasn't until Shailene stepped in front of the camera that I truly saw Hazel for the first time", this is in both the Cast & Casting sections, some other items in the Cast section, don't seem to be about the character they play.
Yes Pincrete. Please let me know when you think that copy editing is completely performed. Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator, will do, I'm mainly tidying phrasing/grammar, modifying terms that are TOO informally 'filmy' (promo/red carpet etc.). There are a few questions below that need the attention of someone who KNOWS the film/book, I've checked with sources for other parts, but cannot for these. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC) … ps tidying is nearly complete, but I need answers to some questions below. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Plot

This movie is missing plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.49.19.161 (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Already done Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 14:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 Not done: A well written plot, but lacking any citation. Own research is not permitted!  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 09:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've started a new section since I think more than a quick 'grammar fix' is needed (especially if you want to retain ALL content) , reading the posts above, I see that neither Captain nor Anti are native English, so you've done pretty well to get this far!

Having said that, some parts are very difficult to understand at present and not clearly organised (not 'readable'). IF I have time, and IF we can work together, I can TRY to do some fixing, a bit at a time, respecting that this is YOUR article and you make the decisions. I'm not on the 'official' copy editors list, but I have helped out on a few 'non-English' articles. Overall first impression is that detail is SOMETIMES excessive, made worse by 'improvable' organisation of content. Pincrete (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … … … ps I will NOT be offended if you prefer to get someone else to help on 'copy-editing', who may have more time. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I would say to wait please, and don't mind. Actually GA reviewer had already requested the article for copy-edit, so I would say to wait until someone shows up, otherwise you'll good to do. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • : I have to say that a few sections, are very difficult to understand

Casting text

My logic was to seperate the 'REAL casting' from 'speculation about casting' … … I've gone back to sources when I was unsure of meaning, for this reason I changed the wording on speculation, since the source doesn't say much more than 'rumour' about the possibility of Woodley or Steinfeld playing the lead . Pincrete (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Story details

I would suggest a re-titling of this section, since we don't know which story is meant (the main story, or the story within the story), also, there aren't many details. Why not just call the section by the name of the fictional book? Pincrete (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC) checkY

Differences film/book

I'm afraid I don't understand what the FIRST part of this sentence means: Hazel tries to find around Gus staring at her, .............. while in the film, they meet each other on the way to their support group. Pincrete (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator, Captain Assassin!, I NEED answers to the question immediately above, other than that, I have FINISHED the grammar/phrasing edit. I am NOT an official copy-editor, so will NOT be offended if you get someone else to check. I am going to CHANGE the 'Story details' sub-section for the reasons I give above. Pincrete (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete, that sentence is confusing. Does it mean something like "Hazel sees that Gus is staring at her?" because "Hazel tries to find around Gus staring at her" sounds like Hazel is desperate to get Gus to look at her. I've never read the book but still I get a feeling that there is something with that sentence.--Chamith (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes Pincrete, sub-section's title is good now. And I'm going to work on that sentence in "Differences film/book." --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've done the copy-edit of that sentence. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've slightly re-phrased, to put the subject (meeting) at the beginning of sentence. In 'Imp Affl' I've also re-added the 'purpose' of the story-in-the-story, and changed it to a sub-section of plot, while it DOES go slightly outside 'plot', it didn't seem to deserve a whole section. By all means revert anything you don't like. I'm finished I think. Pincrete (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I am grateful to all editors helping with copy editing of this article. Wikipedia is based on collaboration of multiple editors and positive contribution of every editor is more than welcome. I am sorry because I can not clarify the meaning of the above mentioned sentences. Maybe some other (copy)editor will be able to understand them and correct them, if necessary, or maybe author of those sentences (Captain Assassin! I suppose?) will clarify them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

She didn't persuade her parents

PLOT TEXT. I'm not sure whether I have given this the right meaning, "The medical team argues against the trip but eventually comply with Hazel's wishes and persuade her parents to allow the trip". Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "but eventually persuade her parents to allow the trip" is false. From what I've seen she gives up on her trip she even tells her mom to send an email to Genies(the organization which grants the wishes) to tell that the trip was about to get cancelled. But instead her mom surprises her by saying that they are going on that trip--Chamith (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I 'fixed' this using the book page, see 'Plot text' above. Actually the text implies the Doctors persuade, but fix this as necessary since I don't know story AT ALL. Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC) ps I hope you don't mind, I've changed this to a sub-section of Copy-edit

 In progress: Copy-editing of this page is being done by Baffle gab1978 from the guild of copy-editors. Pincrete and him/her can work together to fix errors on this page. I'm taking a short wiki-break due to college and other stuff, So I might not be able to help you guys.--Chamith (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I won't be offended if Baffle gab1978, does it on their own. My own contribution was mainly to clarify phrasing, and since I DON'T know the story, Baffle might be better off conferring with someone who does. Pincrete (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I saw this section after I made some changes to the plot section (after just having seen the film; this sentence was among my changes), so apologies if someone else was already working on it. I probably could have made the "persuaded" part more explicit (her parents persuade the doctors, right?), but the rest should be more accurate. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Fru1tbat: I noticed that you did some copy editing to the page. I don't get what you meant by "Her doctors initially will not let her travel, but are eventually persuaded to allow the trip". From what I've seen doctors doesn't allow her to go on that trip no matter what she said. It was organized by Hazel's mom against the doctors prescription. She let hazel go on trip even doctors said no. I don't think they persuaded doctors to get approval. Because doctors only prescribe what's best for their patients they don't create rules for patients.--Chamith (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
When Hazel's mother reveals that the trip is still on, I'm fairly certain she mentions that the doctors (or at least Hazel's primary doctor?) are OK with it, i.e. that they had been convinced to "allow" it. I suppose her doctors can't entirely prevent her from going, but they can definitely order her not to, and it's customary in general to follow a doctor's orders (whether or not there are legal repercussions for not doing so). --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I simply got the sentence from the novel page, fix as need be. Pincrete (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Which letter ?

Re the sentence in diffs book-film, Hazel runs around looking for the letter, while in the film, Van Houten gives it to her .... Which letter? Needs clarifying I think. Pincrete (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks Pincrete.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Neutrality on Critical response section

The Critical response section of the article indicates that the film had some measure of negative critique, but fails to represent it adequately. Positive responses are near exclusively represented, save for part of the sentence in the first review,

... while The Fault in Our Stars can be overbearingly schlocky at times...

which is nevertheless a positive review along with all the others. I think relevant critiques should be added and some of the superfluous praise removed.

Pollenatedweasel (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The negative reviews are few and far between, off-hand I havent read or seen one yet myself. If you find one add. Murry1975 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a reference to a review in HemOnc Today that criticizes the movie for being too pessimistic about cancer, and a response the parent of a daughter who died of cancer http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/06/criticizing-fault-stars-childhood-cancer-disservice.html --Nbauman (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to point out that the prev. appears to be a blog, therefore not RS. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Also to point out that there is a whole para of negative/sceptical reviews, beginning with 'Bradshaw', most of the negative seems to be similar, questioning the excessive sentimentality of the film. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fault in Our Stars (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fault_in_Our_Stars_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1137232887"