Talk:Bethune: The Making of a Hero/GA1
Latest comment: 8 months ago by Utopes in topic Comments
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Utopes (talk · contribs) 01:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be taking on this review shortly. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: Thanks for writing this article! I've now posted my comments, so feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any questions. Good luck! Utopes (talk / cont) 08:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Utopes Thank you. I will get to making the edits based on your comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Utopes: I have done the requested edits for 2, 3, and 6. For 1 I have edited the List of films with longest production time to include Bethune and added a qualifier for the most expensive film in Canadian history part. Jon698 (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: Thank you for addressing the other edits. I still don't think this wikilink is necessary to have in the lede, given that it is appropriately covered and linked in the Production/Shooting subsection. When it comes to the most important links related to the topic, this does not seem to be one, as there's not a lot to be gained by listing other long-production movies which have no relevance to this one, out of the gate. The fact that it was in production for 5 years is definitely important, but this link only needs to be provided once, I feel, with the Shooting section being the preferable location. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Utopes: Oh I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the text itself rather than the link. I just removed it from the opening. Jon698 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: It was a combination thing, but thank you for addressing! The film should be on the list so that it can be useful in the subsection where it comes up. But at the same time, was not super relevant to wikilink a list article in the lead. I've now added some other cases to Section 1, all in the Plot section at the article, so please take a look at them and tell me what you think. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Utopes: I have made some edits to address your comments regarding the plot. Thank you for the fast responses. Jon698 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: I've gone through these recent changes. The addition of "hospitalize" is good, however the rest of the changes to the plot-section are not totally sufficient yet. I've weighed in on each (indicated by being "Partly Done"); let me know what you think about it. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Utopes: I have made more edits based on your comments except for the pneumothorax one. The film is rather extremely specific about the usage of a pneumothorax machine specifically. I don't really know how to reword that section. Jon698 (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: I understand, that's fine then. The grammar is fixed there so I don't think it'll be an issue. Thanks for your help and flexibility! I believe that should be all my concerns addressed, so with that said I'll go ahead and pass this. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: I've gone through these recent changes. The addition of "hospitalize" is good, however the rest of the changes to the plot-section are not totally sufficient yet. I've weighed in on each (indicated by being "Partly Done"); let me know what you think about it. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: It was a combination thing, but thank you for addressing! The film should be on the list so that it can be useful in the subsection where it comes up. But at the same time, was not super relevant to wikilink a list article in the lead. I've now added some other cases to Section 1, all in the Plot section at the article, so please take a look at them and tell me what you think. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jon698: Thank you for addressing the other edits. I still don't think this wikilink is necessary to have in the lede, given that it is appropriately covered and linked in the Production/Shooting subsection. When it comes to the most important links related to the topic, this does not seem to be one, as there's not a lot to be gained by listing other long-production movies which have no relevance to this one, out of the gate. The fact that it was in production for 5 years is definitely important, but this link only needs to be provided once, I feel, with the Shooting section being the preferable location. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Utopes Thank you. I will get to making the edits based on your comments soon. Jon698 (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments
editAlright, here we go. Apologies for the delay in the kick-off, but I'm looking forward to going through this!
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- "The film was in production for five years and was the most expensive film in Canadian history at the time." - a couple things with this; is it necessary to link to the list of longest film productions in this manner? This film does not show up on the target list, and linking to other films with long production times does not seem important to do in the lede. Also, the inclusion that it was the "most expensive film" seems like a completely different can of worms to include in this sentence. (what time? how was this figured?) If this statement is included, it's probably worth a dedicated sentence.
- Now is featured at the list in question, and the link is removed from lead (good) while also being retained in a more important area where the link would be of higher use and relevancy (good). I'll consider this
Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Now is featured at the list in question, and the link is removed from lead (good) while also being retained in a more important area where the link would be of higher use and relevancy (good). I'll consider this
- "Bethune is in the Trudeau Sanatorium in 1927, after contracting tuberculosis." - should clarify what "is in" is, and the extend of being "in" in this case.
- "Hospitalized" is good, I switched "in" to "at" instead though. Should be Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Hospitalized" is good, I switched "in" to "at" instead though. Should be
- "Bethune wrote to Clifford Archibald about tuberculous and is trained as a surgeon by him." - should be broken up and have second part be rewritten in active voice.
Partly done, it still feels like two ideas combined, and needs a separation in between. Would it be correct to say that: "After Clifford Archibald receives a letter from Bethune about tuberculous, Archibald trains Bethune to be a surgeon"? This seems most preferable. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done now! Utopes (talk / cont) 04:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- "A crowd sings The Internationale after Bethune comes out as a communist." - the phase of "comes out as a communist" should probably be rewritten, as the scope of "coming out" in this sense is unclear.
- Partly done. Still uses the phrase "coming out as", to which the extent of this action is unclear. Where and how did Bethune "come out"? What exactly did he do? Utopes (talk / cont) 21:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- With reference to the events in question, this is now Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- With reference to the events in question, this is now
- "He goes to Spain to aid the Republicans and Rice aids him as a medical assistant." - this sentence is not particularly clear. Using "aid" twice is not ideal, and does not make it clear what is being done as aid because of it. I'd recommend using two different verbs instead of "aid".
- Partly done, I should have added that it needs to be broken up because similarly to the Clifford Archibald line, these are two different thoughts. I'd recommend something like "He goes to Spain to aid the Republicans, with Rice acting as his medical assistant." In retrospect, I think aid is probably better than support due to the designation of Rice as the medical assistant, which aiding invokes more medical actions, although neither verbs are great here. How was the supporting/aiding achieved? Exactly what was done? Utopes (talk / cont) 21:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done now! Utopes (talk / cont) 04:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Rice is disillusioned by Norman's womanizing and alcoholism." - disillusioned how? Not fully clear what is going on in this sentence, in the area where disillusionment is concerned.
- Partly done The replacement of "after seeing his womanizing and alcoholism" this is still not the greatest. Would it be suitable to say "after seeing his disrespectful [or other adjective] attitude towards women and his drinking habits" instead of summing it into a single word each, to expand the issue Rice found? Utopes (talk / cont) 21:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done now! Utopes (talk / cont) 04:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- "He wants pneumothorax machine used on him to treat his tuberculosis, but doctors refuse to perform the operation due to the chance it would kill him. He performs the operation on himself and recovers." - pneumothorax is not mentioned anywhere in the article, and while correct, it reads as a technical term out of left field. The grammar in this bit is also a little bit suspect, possibly. It could be worthwhile to say exactly what the risk is (more than just "it will kill him" as readers aren't going to automatically understand this context.
- If necessary from film context, this can be marked Done as resolved. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- If necessary from film context, this can be marked
- "The film was in production for five years and was the most expensive film in Canadian history at the time." - a couple things with this; is it necessary to link to the list of longest film productions in this manner? This film does not show up on the target list, and linking to other films with long production times does not seem important to do in the lede. Also, the inclusion that it was the "most expensive film" seems like a completely different can of worms to include in this sentence. (what time? how was this figured?) If this statement is included, it's probably worth a dedicated sentence.
- a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- "Allan wrote a script for Edward Lewis in 1969, but it was not produced." - this statement is likely challengeable, although it is covered by the immediate next reference. Maybe this could be combined with the next sentence as to indicate that the reference applies to both?
- This is a good combination which removes repetition. Now Done, thank you! Utopes (talk / cont) 19:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is a good combination which removes repetition. Now
- "Warner Bros. stated that they would only finance the film if a major star was cast as Bethune." - this is also likely challengeable, although the piece of text this comes from only has one citation at the end. It could be worthwhile to include the citation after this claim as well.
- Reference inserted, Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reference inserted,
- "Allan wrote a script for Edward Lewis in 1969, but it was not produced." - this statement is likely challengeable, although it is covered by the immediate next reference. Maybe this could be combined with the next sentence as to indicate that the reference applies to both?
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- "Clark and Helen Shaver had to pay for their return to Canada from China themselves." - this is given its own paragraph, but is this a necessary detail to include in the article? Perhaps there is a different place where it's more suitable, but beyond that its somewhat of an out-of-place factoid, I feel, and stranded after the rest of the production content.
- Removed, Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Removed,
- "Clark and Helen Shaver had to pay for their return to Canada from China themselves." - this is given its own paragraph, but is this a necessary detail to include in the article? Perhaps there is a different place where it's more suitable, but beyond that its somewhat of an out-of-place factoid, I feel, and stranded after the rest of the production content.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I'm impressed at the neutrality; everything here was written with fairness.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Stable as it gets, no issues on this front.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- "Donald Sutherland, who played Bethune and attempted to make a $40 million film about him." - is it really necessary to include "and attempted to make" at the end of this? The image looks to just be a picture of Sutherland, so I don't see how the $40 million is pertinent to the caption.
- The shortened caption looked quite short, so I changed the text to include "the actor who played Sutherland". Now complete, so Done. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- The shortened caption looked quite short, so I changed the text to include "the actor who played Sutherland". Now complete, so
- "Donald Sutherland, who played Bethune and attempted to make a $40 million film about him." - is it really necessary to include "and attempted to make" at the end of this? The image looks to just be a picture of Sutherland, so I don't see how the $40 million is pertinent to the caption.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- This article was great based on my readings! Very fair and proportional coverage, with just a couple issues that definitely feel fixable. Thank you for your patience with this!
- With all outstanding concerns resolved, that should do it in regards to meeting the GA criteria. This looks like a pass to me, great job with the article here! Utopes (talk / cont) 04:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- This article was great based on my readings! Very fair and proportional coverage, with just a couple issues that definitely feel fixable. Thank you for your patience with this!
- Pass/Fail:
