Talk:Artifact (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shoebox2 (talk · contribs) 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This will be my debut review, under the auspices of the GA reviewer recruitment program. That means that we'll both have a safety net in the form of a (much) more experienced reviewer looking over my shoulder as needed, although I promise to try and keep the bumbling to a minimum. (Feel free to review my contributions to even date, which include a GA article that I'm currently prepping for FA).

On initial reading, this looks like a really promising article, well and confidently written. There's obviously a lot of enthusiasm for the subject here, and that communicates positively to the reader. It certainly has me interested.

I hope to have my detailed review well started by tomorrow (Thursday 20th). I look forward to working with you! Shoebox2 talk 22:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

There's a lot of potential here, but it needs to be developed quite a bit further to fully meet GA criteria. Some serious problems with neutrality especially; I think the nominator may need to step back from his devotion to the band to more objectively consider what the article needs. My more detailed recommendations to bring the prose and content up to GA standard are listed below this template; please note that I'm open to discussion on any point.  :)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Well-written, but has some problems with both clarity and conciseness in presenting its subject. Only the basic outline of the likely more complicated central conflict is given, and then that's mostly just repeated rather than elaborated upon as the article progresses. This is partly the result of a too-heavy reliance on quotes, rather than prose description. I've made what adjustments I could to the stuff that really stuck out, further details below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Nominator is to be commended for their familiarity with and care for all of the above; it contributes greatly to the readability.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Again, praiseworthy attention to detail here.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   On initial review, and after checking through several sources, this appears mostly OK. However there are a few notably uncited claims in the 'Synopsis' section, details below.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It gets across the basics of the lawsuit and the band's decision to make a documentary about it clearly enough, but the plot synopsis is noticeably incomplete. There's also room for much more factual information re: the development and technical aspects of the film itself. And there's no mention at all re: the film's box-office success or otherwise.

   B. Focused:

   As per above, slightly too focussed on the legal aspects, to the point where the article tends to stray from the details of the documentary to unnecessary discussion of the issues within it.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   This area will definitely need addressing before the article can be passed. I do realise it can be difficult to sort out discussion of the film from its subject in cases like this, but that's all the more reason why it needs to happen. There's a simple, seductive narrative trap here -- noble indie artists Jared Leto and co. vs. the soulless corporate music industry -- and the article pretty much falls right into it. Not necessarily incorrect, but not a neutral presentation of the facts, either. More detailed discussion below.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Edit history shows only a few major editors, who seem to be keeping well on top of things, and there's no talk-page debate.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Difficult subject to illustrate, obviously. I'd be happier with an image of the entire band, but these are OK.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Detailed recommendations

Specific recommendations to bring the prose and content up to GA standard:

• Neutrality: this is the big one. I would particularly request a more balanced discussion re: both 'Background' and 'Production'. There's no perspective here at all on either the lawsuit or the making of the documentary from anyone other than Jared Leto on a promo tour, thus what there is, is largely couched in emotive rather than factual language (much discussion of the band's 'struggle' for 'survival' during this 'war', etc. etc.) This emotive, clearly promotional feel extends as far as wholly irrelevant stuff that's seemingly just the author giving Leto the chance to soapbox. I'd completely remove anything that's not directly about the film or why it was made, starting with the last bit under 'Background' beginning "Leto commended most record company employees..." and the statements in 'Production' beginning "Inevitably, we're all moving..." and "The record company [guys] are not bad people...".

Did EMI not make any public statements explaining their position during the lawsuit, or when the doc was released? How did the other band members feel about making the doc, and what did they hope to accomplish with it, or learn from it? How about the people the band were working with in the meantime? Those other industry types who participated--and for that matter, the ones who didn't--how did they feel about it all? Did anyone with expertise attempt to gauge the accuracy or otherwise of the production? Was the idea to present an artistic or bluntly factual representation, and in either case, is there any internal bias visible in the finished product? A clearer idea of the structure of the documentary would help, too -- are these actual or staged legal meetings, what part of the legal process is actually shown happening, did everyone know they were being filmed at all times, what effect if any did all this have on the case itself, etc etc?

I've just overhauled the Background section. I've added EMI perspective about the suit and the case's reception in Background. I've removed several Leto's statements and emotive terms, including the sentences you cited. Any internal bias should go to Reception. The film began when the band was sued and ended when the lawsuit was resolved, with actual legal meetings shown, and people knew they were being filmed at all times.--Earthh (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The Background section does look much much better. :) I can't fully assess it without seeing how it works with the completed Plot Synopsis section (which is where the info in your last sentence goes), but it can now definitely be used as a template for how to approach the rest of the article. One thing, though: can you clarify a bit further what the entity is that sued the band? I gather the full label name is Virgin EMI Records, whose parent company is Universal Music Group. All this suggests that a simple 'Virgin EMI' should be used throughout, but I'll defer to your knowledge of the situation. Shoebox2 talk 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's EMI which sued the band. The band was signed to Virgin, which at the time of the lawsuit was owned by EMI. Virgin EMI Records is a totally different label formed in 2013 after EMI was sold to Universal Music.--Earthh (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel like that could be clarified a bit better in the article as well. Also, the details re: "The film began when the band was sued and ended when the lawsuit was resolved, with actual legal meetings shown, and people knew they were being filmed at all times." should definitely go in the Production section. Shoebox2 talk 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd also remove comments from the distributors, who are clearly biased. Then I'd completely overhaul the 'Reception' section, which at the moment appears to be much less about the artistic merit or financial success of the film than bolstering the band's position. Unless these reviewers have notable expertise or experience on the legal aspects of the music industry, we probably don't need to be giving their opinions on it that much weight (and if they do have such expertise, consider moving their opinions to the 'Background' section as discussed above.)

I've removed comments from the distributors. I've reconsidered the Reception section and I didn't find that it bolsters the band's position. Those are reviews about the film, not the lawsuit, and they describe what the film want to express, in which way it does so, artistic merit and so on.--Earthh (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

They are reviews about the film, yes, and certainly there's no problem with a few representative quotes that hilight how well the film gets across its central thesis, especially when discussing a documentary. The major problem is the many quotes from the reviews used here are nearly all focussed heavily on that central thesis, and in at least a few cases (notably Alan Tong's and Scott Christian's) also include editorial opinion about it rather than how it's depicted.

Remember, your article is about the film, not the lawsuit. Your first priority in this section is thus to tell the reader how well it succeeded artistically. Also, remember that you don't need to quote everybody; points that keep coming up in reviews can be summarised with a cited note ("Many critics praised the film's effectiveness in getting across its thesis...") and one representative sample quote, perhaps from a particularly notable or informed source. At a bare minimum, I'd like to see the editorial stuff removed and at least some of the rest swapped out for comments on the technical or other aspects, as per the Francesca McCaffery quote. Shoebox2 talk 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed some quotes from the Critical reception section and reworded others which now focus on the artistic merit and technical aspects, such as directing and editing.--Earthh (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job of it, the section is now up to GA standard. Shoebox2 talk 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Have a close read of WP:QUOTEFARM, and then follow its advice throughout this article. Many of your quotes here merely restate info you've already provided in prose, and none of them add anything a prose summary wouldn't except, as discussed, to slant the article towards Jared Leto's POV. The obvious exception is the 'Critical Reception' section, where the quotes are acceptable but need to be refocussed a bit (see discussion under neutrality above).

Done, I've removed several quotes by Leto and overhauled the Critical reception section.--Earthh (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Great work so far, keep it going as you look over the Production section. :) Shoebox2 talk 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is good but can be expanded with a short paragraph of information regarding the film's production, once you've added that in as per below of course. :)

• 'Synopsis' and 'Background' -- the last two paragraphs of the former largely either duplicate or belong in the latter. The 'Synopsis' section needs to be expanded into much more of a plot summary, an expansion of the first paragraph. This section should be entirely about the film itself -- what happens, who appears, how it's structured, where the title came from. Remember, this is what your article's about -- the lawsuit is just the background to it. The distinct impression is given elsewhere that there's a whole lot more to this doc than that (eg. the tantalizing bare mention of not only a neuroscientist but "other artists, musicians, people talking about everything from love, art, war, the state of the music industry, and the world.")

• With that in mind, the 'Background' section then becomes the clear, unbiased explanation of what led up to the creation of this documentary, from all parties' perspective, plus any details of the case itself that haven't been mentioned in the plot synopsis but are relevant to an understanding of what happens on-screen. The current featured Leto quote in that section is pretty much the exact opposite of all of this. Any claims or controversies re: the film's accuracy or lack thereof can also go here, possibly in a separate subsection if extensive enough.

• Many industry watchers viewed the suit as a punitive harassment meant to scare other musicians. Needs a cite.

• Compounding the problem, EMI had been bought by the British equity company Terra Firma for an inflated price of $4.7 billion. Former EMI executives gave interviews describing how the sale resulted in massive upheaval and staff cuts. Despite its catalogue ranging from the Beatles to Coldplay, EMI appeared to be headed off a cliff. Sounds genuinely interesting, but it's not clear what the 'problem' is, so the rest doesn't make sense except as a non-neutral slam on EMI. Besides which it's in the wrong section, nearly completely uncited, the 'former executives gave interviews' bit is unnecessary, and 'headed off a cliff' is too colloquial (not to mention too vague). Please clarify in the 'Background' section using plainly factual language and providing clear refs.

• 'Production' is once again long on emotive quotes about how traumatizing the 'war' with EMI was for the band, short on actual commentary re: the making of a documentary. I'd replace it with, first of all, a dispassionate prose summary of why they decided to carry on despite the lawsuit in place of the hyperbole about what it 'turned into'. Then summarize and frame Leto's comments in the context creative choices, what he and the band wanted to put onscreen as opposed to what it felt like in real life, and find a few more perspectives on the same thing. This is also where you add more information re: the technical aspects of the film itself -- how it was shot, edited, just generally what stylistic choices were made why and when.

I removed unnecessary quotes and added info about the film's production (filming locations, technical specs, budget...). However, I didn't find many informations about the creative choices :( I added a new image depicting the band members.--Earthh (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Four filmmakers taped more than three thousand hours of Thirty Seconds to Mars The editors all get names, but the 'filmmakers' don't? Also, a bit of background info re: who they are and how they were recruited for this project, please. And how is it that these are the 'filmmakers'--a term that usually implies ultimate creative responsibility for a project--but Leto is the producer/director?

The source uses the term "filmmaker" to relate to the people who recorded the footage. They are Eric Donley, Robert Greenwood, Matthias Koenigswieser and Brandon Schebler. On IMDb, these people are credited as camera operators. What should I do? I'd leave things as they are.--Earthh (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks for clarifying. I'd go with 'camera operators', or maybe 'cameramen'; as noted 'filmmaker' carries the strong implication that these people were the driving creative force behind the film, which clearly isn't the case. Given which, unless there's anything notable/interesting about their camera-operating credentials (have they worked on any other notable films?) or their connection with either the band or the film, I don't think I'd bother naming them. Shoebox2 talk 15:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed.--Earthh (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The final product, Artifact, was directed by Jared Leto under his longtime pseudonym Bartholomew Cubbins, a recurring character in the Dr. Seuss universe. It required three film editors—Stefanie Visser, Daniel Hernandez, and Ishai Setton—with Shelby Siegel serving as a supervising editor. Leto produced the documentary with Emma Ludbrook. A bit awkward, and I'm not sure all those people need to be named. How about "The film was produced by Emma Ludbrook and Leto, who also directed under his longtime pseudonym Bartholomew Cubbins. Shelby Siegel served as supervising editor." 'A recurring character in the Dr. Seuss universe' can be placed in a note.

Reworded.--Earthh (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Leto contacted actress Olivia de Havilland, but she declined to participate on-camera, although she did agree to meet with him. And? I'm not asking for a full synopsis of what seems to have been a pretty minor footnote to the production, but then again I've got no way of telling whether it was minor or not. Did she provide anything he used in the film, or just tea and cookies, or what?

The source says nothing more. I also found this article which only says that the actress and Leto met.--Earthh (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Beyond insight into the band's construction of the album's tracks, the film thoroughly examines the state of the modern music industry, focusing on the sinuous relationships between major labels and their artists. This is the type of info that really should be part of the plot synopsis. Also, while I think I know what you're getting at with 'sinuous', the word is not usually used in this context. I'd suggest 'complex' or 'constantly changing'. Also I would suggest tightening up that first bit to 'Beyond insight into the making of the album', and removing 'thoroughly' in the interests of NPOV.

Reworded and moved to the Synopsis.--Earthh (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• In the interests of neutrality as discussed above, I'd cut the quotes in the 'Release' section--these are the film's distributors, it can be safely assumed that they love the movie, think it's important and want everyone to see it. :) The rest seems a bit overly-detailed; I'd cut the bit about who negotiated the deal with whom, and move the awards and the line about it being chosen as one of iTunes' Indie Hits to 'Critical Reception', which is what they represent.

• Speaking of which, the more usual name for that section is just 'Reception'. That way you can include not only reviews but (in separate subsections) box-office returns and any awards. See notes re: neutrality above for a discussion of the quotes themselves.

There aren't many informations to have separate subsections about awards (they're only two) or box office returns. The film received a limited theatrical released which is still ongoing but box office data are not available. It was theatrically released by Adventures in Wonderland, which is not the usual film distributor. The only significant material about its commercial performance is provided by this source, but I don't know how to put it in the article.--Earthh (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Phew! Again, feel free to discuss any of the above. I'll place the review on hold for a few days to allow for response. Thanks, Shoebox2 talk 01:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your comments, you gave a very detailed review of the article. I will start working on the article soon, but I need some serious help :( --Earthh (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me reiterate: I think you've definitely got the makings of a GA here. You essentially just need to be able to retool it as an article about the documentary, with all the balanced perspective that implies, rather than the band's legal saga as solely described by Jared Leto on promo tours. :)

That said, I'd be happy to provide any help I can, and have no problem giving you a week or two to work. On the other hand, if you feel like pursuing the GA is too overwhelming right now, I'd also be happy to close the nom and leave my recs as a guideline for future work on the article. Your call. Shoebox2 talk 01:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Update Feb 25: After due consideration, rewrote some of the recs above to (hopefully) make things clearer re: what's needed, regardless of whether the GA is pursued or not. Shoebox2 talk 15:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on the article, sorry for the delay.--Earthh (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary of progress to date

Since the above is getting a bit messy, and since we're nearly two weeks out and some serious issues are yet to be addressed, I thought I'd just provide a quick summary of what still absolutely needs to be done to pass this article:

• Neutrality: Much improved--almost there, in fact--but I'm just not comfortable with Leto's promotional, emotional voice being the only POV re: the making of the film itself. This is a documentary covering sensitive real-life events, therefore an encyclopedic article about it, by definition, needs to more carefully explore that coverage. (Although it's a much more extreme example of what we're talking about here, a review of the GA An Inconvenient Truth might be helpful.)

I left very few quotes by Leto, only those relevant and necessary. It is presented the point of view from both parties, the band and label, with no exception of what others thought about it.--Earthh (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, my problem isn't so much with the remaining quotes, as that they're the only ones that give any insight into the film. At the moment the article still seems to be assuming that Jared Leto speaks for the band, and for that matter also represents the POV of everyone who worked on the film. Granted that he was the main driving force behind it, didn't either of the other two bandmembers, or anyone else connected to the film, make any statement at all regarding the making of it, or for that matter its content? Shoebox2 talk 00:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Leto is the leader of the band, so he is the one who mostly talked about the lawsuit and the film. Moreover, considering that he is the director and producer, I find his quotes necessary for the article. I didn't find so relevant comments by the other band members.--Earthh (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I poke about a bit more (got interested in the wake of the Oscars) I'm realising this pretty much is a one-man show. Some more balance would still be a helpful goal as you work towards improving the article further, but for now I can let things go as-is for the GA I think.

• Synopsis: Still badly incomplete, and still needlessly repeats material from the 'Background' section. Basically, again, this is where you explain what the film's about -- not necessarily scene-by-scene, but definitely outlined according to structure, including all the major themes and at least an overview of their development. If you're having trouble getting started, again, please have a look at other documentary and film GA articles for a starting-point.

I expanded and reworded a bit the synopsis, citing every major themes presented in the film.--Earthh (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is a good start. However it still doesn't sound like a linear plot synopsis so much as a restatement of the 'Background'. Please take a look at the similar section for An Inconvenient Truth -- you don't necessarily have to go into as much detail as that article does, but that's the type of structure I had in mind. Shoebox2 talk 00:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Background: Looking really good, in fact as I mentioned above can be used as the template for further work on the article. Just needs a bit of clarification re: which label the band was signed to/being sued by.

The band was signed to Virgin and was sued by EMI, which owned Virgin at that time. This is clear in the article.--Earthh (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm. I've made a few edits that I hope make it a bit clearer to the casual reader. Shoebox2 talk 00:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) Earthh (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Production: As noted, still short on balanced POV, also very short on details re: the stylistic and other choices made in the course of filming (I'm still dying to know what let to the inclusion of that neuroscientist!). Naturally, to Leto it was all about the struggle to win the war and whatnot -- and as he's the producer/director, that's important info -- but remember, once again, your article is first of all about the film depicting said struggle. Basically, what you describe in the 'Synopsis' section needs to be explained/expanded on down here. At the very least, there needs to be a neutral prose summary of how the film came about, as opposed to emotive stuff about what it 'turned into'.

ETA: This was written prior to your most recent changes to this section, which are v.promising in line with my notes above. Keep up the good work! Shoebox2 talk 17:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

ETA to the ETA: What I'm thinking now is that if you move the one big paragraph re: who appeared in the film to the Synopsis section and integrate it with the themes already there, and then find perhaps just a bit more to say about the style and format of the film in the Production section, we'd be 99% of the way to compromise in both sections. Shoebox2 talk 00:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This might seem like a lot, but it's really not, trust me, especially given your obvious level of interest in the topic. :) If you need any help, please don't hesitate to ask. But I'm afraid I can't in good conscience pass the article unless I've got evidence that these points have at least been tackled in good faith. Shoebox2 talk 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Well, we've come to the end of the second week of this nom, and the article is much improved. I really appreciate the work you've put into it, esp. given you've been busy with another GA nom etc. in the interim, and I thank you for your patience with me in turn as a novice reviewer.

I don't think the article's quite GA material yet... but the good news is--mindful of what you said earlier about needing help as well--I've gotten interested enough in the interim that I've made the final changes myself as per my recs above, in my in my sandbox, just to make things simpler for both of us. What do you think? If you like what I've done, I can go ahead and place it in article space, and you (as the person who obviously did the vast majority of the work, I just moved some stuff around and added one or two things) can get the credit for the GA-pass. Let me know what you want to do. Shoebox2 talk 00:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate what you've done with the article, you can go ahead and save it :) I thank you for your patience with me as I haven't been able to devote more time to the article. You really did a great job as a reviewer and I thank you for fixing those minor issues.--Earthh (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Also, thank you much in turn for your patience. :) I really do feel like the end result is a genuinely good article, on an interesting topic, and am pleased to pass it; I'd encourage you to continue working to add to it when you have the time, it would be worth it. All the best, Shoebox2 talk 20:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)