Jump to content

Talk:The Most Hated Family in America/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Well, aren't you a lucky son of a gun? Do you plan to take this to FAC? My comments will be more specific if so. Let me know. Reviewer: Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for doing the GA Review! ;) At this point in time, I do not intend to take this particular article to FAC, though anything is possible at some point far off in the future, just had not really entertained thoughts about that with this one. Thanks for the kind thoughts that it could actually get that far in quality status, however. Much appreciated. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Sources

  • Sources look ok for GA. Make sure they are uniform. One has all caps title. SPLCenter is in italics, and it shouldn't be. Go through them to make sure they're all formatted correctly.

Background

  • I think the background should start with a very brief history of the church. When was it started? Who is Fred Phelps? How did he get his church off the ground, and how did his philosophy develop? What prompted him to take on this very confrontational method of protest? When did they start doing this kind of thing? Was it always soldiers' funerals? (Hint: No) Did they protest at other high-profile events? When did they start up with the funerals and how do they make the connection between homosexuality being immoral and soldier funerals? When did they start to be watched by the ADL and SPLC? Do the ADL and SPLC give reasons why they watch the church's actions?
  • Why in God's name would this filmmaker want to give them more attention? Rather, what was his motivation to do a documentary on this particular group?
  • This section needs a copy edit, but I'll wait until you're done to give one.

Content

  • While this section addresses some of what the film covers, it doesn't seem to include any conclusions that the filmmakers reached, opinions they offered about their subjects. The material is cited to news sources, but the content section of any film should just cover what is covered in the film. It doesn't necessarily need to be cited. Is there a particular reason why you did this?
  • The section ends with a very bizarre quote by Shirley Phelps-Roper that confuses more than informs. I'm not saying it doesn't belong there, but this section is like a list of the weird things WBC has done and said. Documentaries address something in real life, and either are narrated to make a point or edited to do that. The section does not seem to summarize the film's point. I've not seen the film, so I don't really know.
  • At the very least, this section should address why the Phelps family is considered the most hated family in America.

Production

  • This section seems to be more about Theroux's opinions of his subject, not how long filming took or the details involved in the filmmaking. Should the section be retitled, or is there information on the production? How did Theroux approach the WBC? How long were they filmed? Just the three weeks? Did he attend church services with them? Did he interview soldiers' families or LGBT representatives to get their opinions on what the WBC is doing? How about the ADL or SPLC?
  • Is there information on how much it cost to film? Any, well, production information?

Release and ratings

  • Here's an odd question that I don't know the answer to: should this article be in British English?


I'm going to stop here to see what your responses are. Please don't thread responses in between. It confuses the simple-minded folk like me. But I can get what you're trying to respond to. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Thank you for the above helpful comments and suggestions. Will address what I can, and respond to what I can, here below. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So...what's up with the article? Just checking. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, will try to do some more research on it soon. Care to help out, perhaps, Moni3? :P -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do both, can I? --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I help out as GA Reviewer in articles I review at GAN, with copyediting and with finding info I have previously identified in the review as good ideas for additions. Up to you if at that point you want to step back from the actual reviewing part, shrug. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way - I will do more research on above. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

[edit]
Sources
  1. Thank you. Have addressed these points and made changes to the article.-- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  1. I added some info to the Background sect, per these questions. Per comment to be "very brief", did not want to expand this too too much. Have not found more specific info regarding ADL and SPLC. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Have been through all the sources I could find regarding direct coverage of the documentary itself, have not found an answer to this yet. It is possible I overlooked it, I will try to go back through the listed sources again. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Okay, copyedits would be most welcome. :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Content
  1. I prefer to keep this sect cited to secondary sources. This is a controversial article on a controversial topic, and has been the subject of objection to its very existence from at least three users - see AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Secondary source commentary on the film concluded its point was mainly to cover the eccentric behavior of the organization itself, and present it to the viewers for analysis. They noted Theroux attempted to approach the organization and its presentation from a sympathetic viewpoint as to why they do what they do, but that this was difficult to achieve due to their actions and the subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I left these sorts of conclusions for the commentary in the Reception section. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  1. I would welcome a suggestion on how to re-title the sect. I have not found addition production info yet, further suggestions and/or research help would be most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unfortunately, have not found info on budget or production costs. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Release and ratings
  1. No objections to British English for the article. -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of the review? No comments on this page in a month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this query [1], which later unrelated was followed by this [2]. -- Cirt (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Due to lack of activity from original GA Reviewer, I have requested a 2nd opinion reviewer. -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments

[edit]

I'm picking up the reins of the GA assessment. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressions of the intro

[edit]
  1. Why is Fred Phelps wikilinked twice in the lead paragraph? If you delete the first instance entirely, the awkwardness of listing both leaders at the end, one linked and the other not, will be avoided. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "April 2007" mentioned twice in lead paragraph two. The second instance could be "the same month", "later that month" or similar. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "subsequently broadcast again" is redundant. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)]][reply]
  4. Lead paragraph two can be summarized more neatly, in plainer language. As it is, it bogs down in a rote listing of airings. It could be more conversational, less focus on air dates, to bring the reader into the article for detail rather than presenting it up front. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If the documentary received four-star ratings from more than two publications, then the first sentence of the third lead paragraph is fine. If there were only two such ratings, the construction is wrong, with the misleading usage of "including". Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "A DVD-box-set" probably does not need hyphens as it is a noun standing alone. Later in the article, a similar construction appears as DVD-boxed-set. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The phrase "four-star-ratings" probably needs only one hyphen, as "four-star" modifies the noun "ratings". Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Redundancy: "located in"... delete "located". Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  1. Phelps could not have graduated from John Muir College (my alma mater) in 1951 as it was not founded until 1967. The Roger Chapman book refers to another college, the two-year junior college which became in 1955 John Muir High School (Pasadena, California). Time magazine makes it clear in this article. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The wording "ordained as a Southern Baptist" should be trimmed to "ordained a Southern Baptist". Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "LGBT individuals" is not what Phelps saw in local Gage Park. He saw men he called "sodomites" who were looking for homosexual sex; lesbians had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, 1991 is given by Mother Jones as the time when Phelps first protested, not necessarily the same as when the park first became a meeting place for homosexual men. Finally, I always hate to see the word "individuals" used in this manner, it seems so much police-speak jargon. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sentence's construction is run-on and clunky: "The church runs the website GodHatesFags.com, and GodHatesAmerica.com, and other websites expressing condemnation of LGBT, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Sweden, Ireland, Canada, the Netherlands, the United States, and other groups." Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Background section must conclude its coverage prior to April 2007, as the first documentary air date was at that time. Right now, the background has this sentence: "The state of Kansas passed legislation in April 2007 establishing a protest-free zone around funerals of military servicemen." Perhaps the state of Kansas can be cited as considering this legislation. There is also this bit: "A Baltimore, Maryland jury issued a verdict against the organisation in a November 2007 decision..." which likely cannot be used as background. If Roger Chapman's mention of American Legion motorcycle honor guards puts it past April 2007, it should go, too. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Chapman is wrong if he says that FreeRepublic.com (Free Republic) was formed to counter Westboro pickets. It was first placed online 21 December 1996 by Jim Robinson for people to share conservative views. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The phrase "six-year-old-children" could have one fewer hyphen. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]
  1. This section jumps right in without setting the stage, without context. What do the first few scenes of the film show? How does it present its story? Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Another instance of "LGBT individuals". :/ There must be some better way to say this, a way that educated people would use in conversation. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We get a Fred Phelps quote, but is there no useful Shirley Phelps-Roper quote, beyond the one Moni3 thought was confusing? Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]
  1. Generally, right-facing images look best on the left side of the page. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with Moni3 that this section is less about production and more about Theroux's thoughts. Maybe it could be renamed Filmmaker or something simple like that. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Overlinking. Most people will not need a link to UK, and a link to Topeka, Kansas already gets the reader to Kansas, the state.
  4. Please remove "in order" as it is not necessary. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from organisation

[edit]
  1. The "and commented" part of this sentence is clumsy:
    Shirley Phelps-Roper stated she had one regret about the documentary, and commented, "If he had just called it, 'The Most Hated Family in the World'"
  2. Section is very short. I'm on the fence about whether it is too short for GA, whether it should be merged into another section. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]
  1. This is more like "Critical reception", as the ratings expressed in the previous section are also a kind of reception. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maybe I'm going out on a limb regarding WP policy, but I would like a little more guidance as I read the flow of negative and positive critiques. A few well-placed transition phrases would prepare me better to hear two or three negative reviews in a row, or to hear alternating bad and good ones, or to hear a row of admiring ones. Can the reviews be rearranged chronologically or by region or grouped into separate piles of admiring and scathing? Taking another look, it appears they are roughly chron ordered, which may explain the jumbled, whiplash feel I get from having panning to praise in the same paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Let's correct Roland White's use of the hyphen. This pair should be spaced en dashes: "Theroux's usual technique -the friendly ingenu -made absolutely no impact on these people." This one should be snugged up, no space between out- and argue: "It is impossible to out- argue the religious bigot." White's word ingenu is spelled ingenue in French and in my American spell checker. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we "quietly correct" the misspelling of the word ingenue (per MOS:QUOTE) or should we place the 'sic' template? I do not see the misspelling as important to context, so I think quiet correction is the answer. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]
  1. An excess of commas. A sharp-pencil trip through the article should be made, asking each comma whether it is needed. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The date format is perfectly consistent within the article, but why was mdy chosen over dmy, if UK English was selected? Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After Washburn University, the footnotes should be swapped to put them in the correct numerical order. Same after "fag enabler". Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For North American readers, you might want to point out that the DVD was released in PAL region 2, which normal US and Canada players cannot reproduce, or that the DVD is not sold by retailers in North America except as an import, or that the DVD sales release was in the UK only. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The Roger Chapman book was published in Armonk, New York. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's my review. I will place the article on hold for improvements and I look forward to comments. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking some comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking more. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm passing this article for GA. My style concerns are not critical to GA quality; they are more in the line of FA quality. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Most_Hated_Family_in_America/GA1&oldid=404498379"