Talk:The Room/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging also frequent editor @PatTheMoron:

Well-written:

1a Generally good. ~~Would like to see the brackets avoided in text. Tense in directorial credit: "he desires credit" rather than "he desired credit"~~ 1b Some structural concerns here. I can appreciate the Inconsistencies section can be an offshoot of Plot, to the extent that the film is supposed to have one; it also reads like a Reception section in parts, though. I'd suggest moving it down near Influences, creating an Analysis section and making it and Influences subsections of Analysis. The third para of Script reads as though it belongs in Inconsistencies. Additionally, per WP:CASTLIST I don't see the merit of the bare bullet point Cast section, and suggest converting it to a table and placing it alongside the Casting subsection in much the same was as the GA Apt Pupil (film). That won't leave room for the Johnny photo, but it can be moved up to Plot since it depicts the character. The Sestero photo can also be moved down further. ~~Why should Home media get its own section when everything else is grouped under Release?~~

Verifiable with no original research

Page numbers, or at least chapter titles if page numbers are unavailable to the editors, should be used rather than the a-z citation to The Disaster Artist- the fill citation should be moved to Further reading for consistency; Other sources are incosistent as to whether dates are spelled out (June 17, 2009) or given in 2017-07-18 format. Per WP:LEADCITE, come of the citations should be moved down from the lede; this came up in the last GAC as well. Plot shouldn't have citations either.

but the YouTube reference ( Tommy Wiseau... Will The Room be on Broadway?) does not appear official; madameask does not appear to be a notable source either; and Amazon.com is retail and not an independent source. "Despite the criticism, the film has received positive reviews from audiences for the same reason with some viewers calling it the 'best worst film of all time'" is completely uncited.

~~Review pending~~

[1]

~~Earwig did turn up other concerns:~~

Wiseau has been secretive about exactly how he obtained the funding

that he made some of the money by importing leather jackets from Korea

~~to The Rocky Horror Picture Show; audience members dress up as their favorite characters, throw plastic spoons~~

Broad in its coverage:

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. It can be hard to appear truly neutral when the film is indisputably, objectively bad and every viewer and critic says so. The fact that Production is a funny read even though it contains no jokes is a charm.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. No edit wars taking place

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Poster is attributed, other images are free from Commons

2c review: "Running time 100 minutes"- source says 99. Under Inconsistencies: ""if only you knew." - ref says "If people only knew". Development: " leather jackets from Korea"- source just says "clothing". The specifics, per above, are better cited to IndieWire. "$7,800,000 in 2016"- not in source- why 2016? Completely random later year. Remove all adjustments for inflation unless you update to 2017 and have refs. "In his performance, Wiseau attempted to emulate Marlon Brando and James Dean"- source mentions Clint Eastwood and Orson Welles rather than Brando- and it would more accurately be said "direction and performance", given the question. Need page numbers to verify the book ref. Putting on hold until then. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review and give your feedback! I'll try to address everything this week. Jeanjung212 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC) @Ribbet32: I've been working on all the items that were of concern and have a few questions/comments along the way.[reply]
2a. Page numbers - I should have this done within a week, the copy I own is an e-book with non-standard page numbers but I have a local library that is the same edition as the cited one I'll go and review for the correct page numbers.
2b. YouTube reference - I know the reference does not appear that official. However it is of Tommy Wiseau himself mentioning his plans on the recording. If that isn't satisfactory I can just remove that portion from the Live performances section if my searches turn up no alternate source.

I'd still have doubts as to its acceptability. Also, do you have secondary sources to replace the Amazon and Netflix refs? DVD and Blu-ray releases will often receive some news coverage, at least in the form of reviews. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the youtube source with a different more recent one and changed the information a little, also got the better sources for the releases. I removed the purchase information because it doesn't seem other film articles bother with that. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2c. Leather jackets from Korea source says clothing - I'm a little confused by this one because the cited source quotes Tommy mentioning the leather jackets.

Sorry, missed that. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2c. Inflation - I'm fine with removing this if it's still viewed as a problem, I just thought it would be interesting information to have for readers since I think many will think of monetary values in current year worth. The numbers in the article are automatically calculated by the currency template used by way of {{Inflation}} which uses {{Inflation/US/dataset}} which is not updated until the end of each year because of how inflation can fluctuate in each year, which is why the display date will always lag a year behind the current year.

@Jeanjung212: Interesting. I guess there's a template for everything. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2d. Earwig concerns - I looked into the indiewire article and all of those lines actually existed in the Room wikipedia article for more than a year before that indiewire article was written, so I think they copied the prose from us for those parts.

Good find. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou again so much for taking your time to help me with this! Jeanjung212 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC) @Ribbet32: It took me a bit but I found all the page numbers for the book citations and have changed them. I even was able to correct one of the quotes from the book. Only one citation couldn't be found in the book or elsewhere so I removed that information. Please let me know if I missed anything for this GA review, I think with this last revision I've addressed all the concerns. Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanjung212: Thank you, I noticed the additional citations earlier this morning. I'm going to have a busy work day so please give me till Saturday to review. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanjung212: Thank you for all your hard work! I am satisfied with this now, and very pleased Wikipedia can turn out articles better than their own subjects. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]