Jump to content

Talk:The Interview/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: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 02:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Lead: inappropriate wording ("merciless")
    Production: organization of prose may benefit from MOS:FILM
    Release: WP:RECENTISM prose needs paraphrasing, summarizing, and shortening
    Way, way too much quoting in almost every section, and not enough paraphrasing. A large majority of this article consists of only direct quotes.    		 Don't know Don't know
    (b) (MoS) Lead: doesn't summarize main points
    WP:CSECTION: avoid controversy sections and incorporate views into the main body
    See also: off-topic links and topics[1]
    		 Fail Fail
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) OK. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) OK. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) See also borders on synthesis. To my knowledge, there are no sources connecting this film to these topics.[2] Don't know Don't know
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Lead: fails to summarize major aspects, such as production and the critical appraisal of Park's acting, instead giving too much attention to controversy and screening logistics. Balance is important.
    Plot: fails to document the most important points (for example the food scarcity plot point) and to connect them together based on their dramatic effect and resolution (Skylark's revelation that the food is fake) One of the reasons this is so important is because a plot point like this not only serves to move the film forward (and get everyone on board for the Interview) but it also serves to illustrate the character. In this particular instance, Skylark refused to believe the claims about the food scarcity, starvation, concentration camps, etc. But Kim's threat to destroy his enemies, followed by Skylark's revisit to the "grocery" store, wakes him up out of his gullibility and he realizes he's been "honeydicked". The plot fails to illustrate the characters and their relationship to the story and passes over all of this.    		 Don't know Don't know
    (b) (focused) SEEALSO links off-topic Fail Fail
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Lead: unbalanced towards "controversies", over-representing NK threats, release delay, hacking, and cancellation. While these are certainly important and significant elements and must be mentioned, they need to be given less coverage in the lead, and more coverage needs to be given to the development, the production, and critical reception. There is barely a coherent plot summary in the lead, nor any indication as to the motivation for making this film. Lead must be well-rounded and avoid represnting WP:RECENTISM
    See also: links and topics not supported by RS indicating a connection to this film[3]    		 Fail Fail
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    OK. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) OK. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) OK. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass I'm putting this on hold due to the problems described below. The nominator asked me not to fail it and to give him time to work on the issues. I hope the nominator is familiar with the topic and the sources used to support the material. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This review (and the page history) indicate that this article was not ready for GA status when it was nomninated. However, an attempt has been made by many editors to fix the problems. I think at the moment, it meets the bare minimum, so I'm passing it. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Lead
  • The film stars Rogen and James Franco as journalists instructed to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (played by Randall Park) after booking an interview with him.
    • This basically misstates the entire plot. First of all, the interview was setup to bring much needed prestige and professionalism to the Skylark Tonight show, particularly to its producer and its host. The "instruction to assassinate" Kim is secondary to that goal. Basically, the producer wants to be taken seriously, the host less so, but at the end of the day, he wants the same thing as the producer. So that's first and foremost. The CIA got involved secondarily, because of the access the journalists were able to procure due to Kim being a fan of the show. And as the film progresses, we see that these men are just not the killing type, which in fact, is a very realistic plot point. In other words, most people are not natural born assassins. Third, as the film progresses, we discover that killing Kim not only fails, but only occurs as a means of self-defense and saving the world from nuclear war. Therefore, the lead summary should play down the assassination angle, and play up the fact that the interview was procured for legitimate reasons first, with the CIA's directive second, and finally, the "third way" taken by the characters, to fulfill all of the above goals. As I said to the nominator, this a complex topic. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many details about the controversy and the release in the lead, and not enough summarized points about the topic, such as the production and reception (particularly the acclaim received by Randall Park and Diana Bang for their superb acting. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June 2014, the North Korean government threatened merciless action against the United States if the film's distributor, Columbia Pictures, went ahead with the release.
    • I get the joke, but we need to draw a line between parody, irony, and encyclopedic prose. While it is certainly funny to mock NK by using the word "merciless" here, regardless of their silly position, we shouldn't use it here. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • David "Dave" Skylark (James Franco), host of the talk show Skylark Tonight, interviews celebrities about personal topics and gossip. After Dave and his crew celebrate their 1,000th episode, they discover that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is a fan of Skylark Tonight, prompting the show's producer Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogen) to arrange an interview.
    • This really needs to be rewritten. For example, there is no need to say "interviews celebrities about personal topics and gossip" when that is best summarized in two words: tabloid journalism. Second, this intro neglects to mention that Rapoport wants the interview because he wants to be taken seriously as a professional. That's an important point that informs the plot, and later influences Skylark to follow through with the interview and do his job by asking the hard questions. Furthermore, the events leading up the interview, particularly Skylark's friendship with Kim, are in some respects a form of investigatory journalism that informs his interview. While it seemed like Skylark was playing softball with Kim, he made the choice to play hardball and become a professional when he began to think critically about the subject he was investigating. In a way, this shows the transition from tabloid to professional journalism for both the producer and the host, who tackle a serious topic with serious implications for the very first time. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a night of drugs, sex and partying, the next day CIA Agent Lacey (Lizzy Caplan) proposes...
    • The night of partying has nothing to do with the plot. I mean, I guess you can say their defenses were down and such, but it's totally inconsequential to the story. The fact is, the CIA got wind of the interview opportunity and asked them to "take Kim out". That's all that matters here. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • they reluctantly agree.
    • Not exactly, and this misses out on the whole honeypot/honeydick theme throughout the film. Skylark agreed to do it because the agent was wearing glasses and wearing a revealing top. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a dinner mourning the death of Kim's bodyguard, Dave discovers Kim's malicious character and that the nearby grocery store is merely a façade.
    • Which fails to tie-in with the original scene showing fully stocked stores loaded with food after their arrival in North Korea, which is where it should be explained first, not glossed over. This is important for several reasons. The plot carefully encodes and explores many of the stories the west hears about NK. In this case, that their people are starving. But failing to detail these historical touchstones, the latter statement "Dave discovers Kim's malicious character and that the nearby grocery store is merely a façade" becomes uttlerly devoid of meaning. As I write below, many sources cover this background material and explain it in the context of the plot. For example, Barbara Demick's article in the New Yorker (linked below), discusses this very scene: "First-time visitors to North Korea are always surprised that such a poor country can provide comfortable accommodations and abundant food when it wants to make a good impression. The fictional journalists of “The Interview” are impressed, too...Skylark is initially convinced by a display of fresh fruits and vegetables in a supermarket that food is in abundant supply, but, later in the film, he has a moment of reckoning when he picks up one of the grapefruit and discovers it is a fake. Here the movie is effectively playing with the contrast between illusion and reality in the country. Visitors to Pyongyang in the famine years of the nineteen-nineties used to describe supermarkets that displayed plastic produce. (These days, Pyongyang has several expensive foreign-currency shops.) And the capital is often described as a large Potemkin village, an elaborate stage set designed to fool outsiders into believing that North Korea is as rich and powerful as its propaganda claims."[4] It is almost as if the editors who wrote this article did not bother to do any research or review the plot for accuracy. In fact, it appears that not a single plot point was discussed in its historical and thematic context outside of quoting specific people. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • If the sections "Main cast" and "Cameos" are actually needed, then they should appear in columnar format to save space. I'm not sure why there are citations in the main cast list, but this material should already be sourced elsewhere in the article. See WP:FILMCAST for details. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jay-Z and Beyoncé were reportedly paid $10,000 each to cameo, but do not appear in the film.
    • This is incomplete. In addition, according to the cited source, other actors were also paid and involved, such as Brad Pitt, Neil Patrick Harris, Zooey Deschanel, Michael Vick, and Kevin Federline. Why is this only focusing on Jay-Z and Beyoncé? Further, this information came to light due to a leaked budget, which the article fails to note. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also
Sourcing and broad criteria
  • It looks like very few of the best sources have been used to write this article. Barbara Demick's "A North Korea Watcher Watches 'The Interview'" provides key, historical background information. Even one of the key interviews with Franco and Rogan ("[James Franco and Seth Rogen Talk About ‘The Interview’") is nowhere to be found. GA's don't have to be comprehensive, but contributors should make a basic attempt to cover the bases. This article looks like a hodge-podge with little unifying narrative or theme tying the subject together. Also, few if any sources have been added after March 2015, even though there have been key stories since that time (such as the subsequent WikiLeaks tranche released in June that adds additional information to this article). Except for one sentence about a music controversy, there is nothing about the score nor the soundtrack. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy sections
  • Controversy sections should be avoided for good reason. Talk about the "North Korean reaction", the "Sony Pictures Entertainment hack", "Hackers' threats", and the "Alleged use of unlicensed music" in their respective sections, or merge them into more appropriate sections. " "Alleged use of unlicensed music" is a one-sentence section! We do not have one-sentence sections in GA-class articles. What we have are "Music" sections that talk about the score, soundtrack, and any related issues. In any case, upon closer reading, we find that the topics of the "North Korean reaction", the "Sony Pictures Entertainment hack", and "Hackers' threats", when properly paraphrased and summarized, all are within the scope of the "Release", and in fact, we already see the majority of this topic covered there. For example, the "Cancellation of wide theatrical release" subsection is essentially a response to the "Sony Pictures Entertainment hack", whereas the essential narrative of the "North Korean reaction" section is really a "Pre-release reaction". I think all of this could be placed in the release section, and once it is properly paraphrased,with a lot of the unnecessary excessive quoting removed, it would fit perfectly. Of course, that's not the only solution, but simply one of many. Furthermore, there is a lot of fluff in the release section that should be trimmed. The "Response" section is simply an extended quote farm to the "Cancellation" section, and all of this can appear in one subsection properly paraphrased. After all, the point of this is that "Sony received criticism for canceling the wide release". We don't need four paragraphs to make that case; two should suffice. The extended length of many of these sections and quotes reads like WP:RECENTISM which was never properly fixed and summarized in preparation for GAN. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
North Korean reaction
  • First two paragraphs should be paraphrased; way too much quoting going on here and not enough writing. Write about the topic using the context provided by the secondary sources. Do not write about the topic using the context from the primary quotes. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revised release
Box office and online rentals
  • Sony expects The Interview to break even through video on demand sales and saving millions of dollars on marketing.[93] The National Association of Theater Owners contends that Sony will lose at least $30 million due to poor box office performance.
Critical response

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Interview/GA1&oldid=1038139964"