Talk:Goodbye to Language

Peer Review

Goodbye to Language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and 1) I'd like to see it get promoted, but more importantly 2) its a difficult film and I was hoping to get feedback on how much sense it makes as an article. If at all possible, I'd love to hear reviews of the Synopsis section from someone who has seen the film and another from someone who has not.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Tezero

• The sentences in Synopsis are quite short and choppy; I'd recommend melding some together with conjunctions and gerunds to make it flow better.
• Who's Davidson?
• "Roxy the dog" - optional if you feel it's unclear, but you may want to remove "the dog" since you've already specified
• "Roxy, a stray dog, happens upon them and they adopt him" - Roxy is adopted by both couples?
• You're right; Synopsis is confusing; it took me a couple reads to really grasp what was going on. I would suggest reorganizing some of the information in the first paragraph to make it clearer that it's essentially the same story told twice, interspersed, but with different couples. Perhaps something like this would do the trick:

Goodbye to Language tells two similar versions of a romance narrative in an interspersed format; these two stories are named "1 Nature" and "2 Metaphor", and they respectively focus on the couples Gedeon and Josette, and Marcus and Ivitch. In each story, ...

THEN, after a brief summary of the general narrative, start explaining what happens in each one individually. Actually, this is an unorthodox idea, but you might want to use two columns and tell the story separately in each one. Tezero (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can work on most of these later this week, and you're right it wasn't made completely clear that the story was repeating itself. One problem: although I remember Roxy being adopted by both couples, many of the articles I cited have commented that it is unclear if the second couple adopts Roxy. But that doesn't seem very appropriate to explain in the Synopsis section. So I just wrote it as it currently is.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I worked on this and think its better. So much of the story (Davidson is a professor, the man once stabbed the woman) is implied and not bluntly stated, so it is a difficult section to write. What about the rest of the article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Yeah, it's an improvement. A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film? I'd think one or two would suffice. Same with Themes - I can't imagine that much has really been written about this film to justify a section rivaling/exceeding what the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Kerouac, Charlotte Bronte, Luo Guanzhong, and the Beatles would get. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I could trim it some more, but I'm not sure about your rational for doing so. The film has several themes and including them is comprehensive. The references are a major part of it so I think that a casual reader would find it very useful to be able to explore all of them. The point of these references is not the fact that there are many references in the film, the point is the meaning behind them and their individual content. Each reference has a purpose and is a character in the film. Anything else? Clarity, grammar?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article also received a review when it was successfully nominated as a DYK, so I'm fine to close this request now unless someone else has something to suggest.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this next. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Review

Infobox

• Good Infobox

Infobox is well presented and laid out.

Lead Paragraph

• Well Written
  

The lead is well written.

• Could be shortened
  

It is quite long and could be shortened a bit.

• No references
  

This section dose not contain 1 reference in the whole lead.

Synopsis

• Quote Box
  

Try to keep the standard colour for the quote box and have it horizontal so it merges in with the text where appropriate.

• Lack of References
  

There is not many references in the majority of this section. There are no references towards the plot, but the parts that are referenced are well referenced

• Too Trivia
  

The part references to other works are is too trivial. That whole paragraph should not be included as it is not encyclopedic enough. See WP:IINFO.

Cast

• Incomplete
  

The last four names do not include character they portray.

• No Reference
  

This section does not contain any cast sources.

Production

• Fairly well written
  

It is mostly fairly well written this section. Still some improvements could be made, grammar wise.

• Well referenced
  

This section is an improvement on the others. The references are good and feature when necessary.

• Quote Box
  

As previously mentioned in the review please try and keep the quote box its standard colour. Please have it in horizontal view.

Reception

• Well Referenced
  

Well written and referenced.

• List
  

No need to list all the other critics in Top film lists and awards. That part removing the trivia, could merge into the preceding part.

Themes and Interpretations

• Good Section
  

This part is well referenced and written very well. Same comment I have about the quote box but well done on the writing of this very detailed section.

Overall Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A.Yes the majority of the article is well written. A few minor grammar mistakes I picked up along the way, but excusable.

   B. No, There are quite a few parts that are trivial information. Please do not include trivial information please read WP:IINFO. The opening paragraph needs some references for verification. It seems quite self research.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. First half of the article (Infobox, lead paragraph, synopsis [the majority of it] and cast) contain very little to no reference.

   B. The references that are there are fully cited to reliable sources.

   C. Contains a lot of original research towards the start of the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic

   B. No a lot of trivial parts included.

4. Is it neutral?

   Neutral, article is not biased

5. Is it stable?

   Yes, there are not many significant recent changes

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged

   B. Images are relevant to the topic

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This one was tough to judge, especially me seeing how good the end of the article was. Please fix the issues I addressed for the start. By making more references and losing the coloured quote box. Make sure you do not have any self research in the article or trivia parts. If these parts are fixed the article will have a better chance of getting a good article. Unfortunately this time I can not mark this as a good article with so much self research but I strongly appreciate the dedication that was put into the second half of the article, Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on now. Firstly, can it be put on hold pending improvements please? Secondly, some of your comments are inaccurate. There do nbot need to be references in the lead or syopsis. I don't think the cast needs it either but I'll have to check that one. There is absolutely no original research. May I plerase either have a second opinion or more time? As far as trivial content, can you be more specific?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hello, this article recently failed a GA assessment with no time allowed to address the reviewers comments before it was closed out. The reviewer claimed that the article contained original research because the lead and the synopsis contained no references. I began to explain that this is an inaccurate assessment, but would rather just start over ionstead of interacting with that reviewer. The reviewer also claimed that the article contained a lot of trivial information without being very specific about what they mean by that. Previously the article recieved a Peer review and passed a "Did you know?..." assessment without any such issues being commented upon. Basically I'd like a new assessment.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You are right about the lead and plot per MOS:LEAD and WP:FILMPLOT respectively, Deoliveirafan. However, I think JohnGormleyJG was very specific about the trivial stuff; he said, "The part references to other works are is too trivial. That whole paragraph should not be included as it is not encyclopedic enough. See WP:IINFO." And no one mentioned i before? I'm quite sure Tezero did: "A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film?". And I agree with them. On a side note, I'd say DYK review is not a good parameter. While they do copyvio reviews, spotcheck sources, and check size, content itself is not really a matter to pass a DYK... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, that "spot on" assessment was mentioned before. However I do have reasonable arguments about why these paragraphs should be kept and I don't think that it would be unheard of for me to voice these arguments instead of having them abruptly shot down. Please be fair, this boils down to an over anxious reviewer trying to get as many submissions to some sort of pointless GA cup competition and failing to be aware of some of the most basic GA criteria. I have ever reason to be annoyed right now. This was not a good review by an experienced reviewer.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, on this particular page I was merely explaining why I was requesting a speedy reassessment, not requesting a discussion of the request. I think it would be more constructive of you to use this page for an actual review.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Deoliveirafan, since this was originally your GAN, while you can open a reassessment it has to be a community assessment, because an individual assessment needs to be opened by someone who is not a major contributor to the article. (The person who opens an individual GAR is responsible for reviewing it, and that can't be you.) Also, I see only one edit from you on Wikipedia (August 26) since July 11. I'm going to close this, since either a community reassessment or a completely new GAN is the appropriate step here; I'd recommend the latter per the instructions on WP:GAR: However, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate. It's now well over two months; when you return, I suggest trying the GAN, once you've dealt with any relevant issues from the original review and the discussion above. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Willing to work with you to get it into shape. I guess just preemptively, I firmly believe that naming all of the references in the film is very important to this film and on the same level as the cast list or the plot outline. There are some critics who talk about these references and their importance in the film, a few are referenced in the article. I could add more quotes or references from critics and film theorists to back that up if needed. Basically, this is more of an experimental film than a narrative (although technically its both), so I really don't think its trivial to list the references made in the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to have to first read over: (1) the Peer review (2) the first Good Article review and (3) the 2nd Good Article review -- and see if all of the recommendations raised in those prior three forms of review have since been successfully addressed by changes made to the article before it was again nominated for a 3rd review here. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't understand one reviewers request for the Quote Boxes, so I'd need help with that if it really is necessary. I'm skeptical about not being able to list a cast member without having the character they played, but if its necessary I can add "uncredited" (although its technically original research). Some of it has been trimmed, but if necessary more can be trimmed. I don't really think that the top ten list is too long, but it can be trimmed if needed. Otherwise the previous reviewer made mistakes, and I've already mentioned my desire to discuss the importance of the "References to other works" section in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I can't find it, but there was a "Did you know?" review as well if you wanted to read over that and know where to look for it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Goodbye to Language. And technically the 2nd GA assessment wasn't really an assessment, it was more my mistake in attempting to get a second opinion on the first assessment and not knowing exactly where to make that request.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, now the 3rd review total for the article, will stay standing in the history, as the 2nd GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Great. Also, I was very annoyed after the first assessment because at that time the GA nominations were clogged up and it took five months for the assessment to take place, after which the nomination was quickly closed before I could address any of the issues or politely point out some mistakes in the review. Thank you for your prompt review and I assure you I have every intention of being civil here.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful, good to hear! My pleasure! I'll do my best to do a point-by-point review based on all of the WP:Good article criteria, so either way it turns out, hopefully you'll have some good ideas on how to further work on Quality improvement for the article in the future. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Article edit history upon inspection shows stability going back at least 3 months. No issues here.
2. Article talk page history shows similar stability upon inspection. No issues here.

Next, on to Image review. — Cirt (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:Adieu au Langage poster.png - Great job on fair use rationale here, nicely done. Y
2. File:Nyon street on the shore of lake Geneve.jpg - image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image review there upon my assessment checks out okay. Y
3. File:Jacquesellul.jpg - not detailed enough fair use rationale. Zero fair use rationale given for this article itself. Compare with that for the image poster, above, and how much more detailed that one is. Also -- it could be possible to attempt to contact this person's representatives to obtain a free-use photo, perhaps?  Not done.

One image needs to be addressed, as noted, above. Please explain, below. — Cirt (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I substituted the third image with a different image of Ellul that the copyright holder uploaded. Would that be enough or should I add fair use info to the image's page in Commons?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not how Commons works. All images on Commons must be free-use licensed, per commons:COM:L. — Cirt (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Was about to write that I didn't explain the new image well enough, but I see that you've already found and cropped it. I was thinking that because the copyright holder uploaded it as a Creative Commons image that it would be ok to use in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that's fine. — Cirt (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I was also thinking of adding a fourth image: one of the illustrated depictions of parallax available in Commons. Do you think that would be helpful to the article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems a bit tangential. — Cirt (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Copyvio concerns as noted by Copvyio Detector, below -- at over seventy (70) percent confidence. Problems with MOS:LEAD and WP:FILMPLOT and WP:MOSFILM as noted at 2nd GA Review at Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA2. Problems with WP:IINFO as noted at 1st and 2nd GA Reviews. Problems with structural flow. The References to other works sect needs to be removed outright or significantly trimmed -- it reads like bragging about something, promotional, and POV. Top film lists and awards - sect seems completely unencyclopedic, especially in the way it is presented like a list of Who's Who, again, comes across as bragging about something. Significant, serious work is needed by an outside, previously uninvolved editor or multiple editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I agree with comments at Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1 that said the lede intro sect was a bit long. I agree with analysis at Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1 that there are too many obtuse references to trivial material in multiple locations. There are seven (7) blockquotes or quoteboxes that are all very very large. These should all be removed or perhaps keep one or two only with one sentence in the quote, tops.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Checklinks tool linked to from GA Toolbox shows at least thirty (30) problem links or dead links. This could hopefully be fixed by archiving these to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate. Link problem defined as - any entry with Checklinks tool with any value other than "0" or "200" or even "200" with a comment next to it.
	2b. 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).	Normally we don't need much in the way of citations for fictional plot synopsis. But in this case the reader comes across feeling as if points are being pushed via the Plot synopsis here. Best to rewrite that entire sect, relying upon secondary sources, rather than primary. The large blockquote in the Synopsis sect is a violation of WP:NOR as dependent on a primary source, and unencyclopedic as it does not belong in that particular sect anyways.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Placing comments about Copyvio here. Earwig's Copyvio Detector linked to at top of GA Toolbox shows for link analysis "Violation Possible 71.5% confidence" and for search engine analysis "Violation Possible 43.5% confidence". The latter is troublesome, but the former is a significant, serious problem. Article needs to be gone over by previously uninvolved editors and also have quotations trimmed, removed, and/or paraphrased. Copyvio Detector result should ideally be below 30 percent confidence for all sources cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Production sect does not appear to follow WP:MOSFILM. See a better example of sect breakdown at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I agree with the peer review at "A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film? I'd think one or two would suffice. Same with Themes - I can't imagine that much has really been written about this film to justify a section rivaling/exceeding what the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Kerouac, Charlotte Bronte, Luo Guanzhong, and the Beatles would get." This still seems apt. Perhaps less so, but the depth with which the article goes on and on to other references, etc, is overkill here and therefore is a problem with NPOV issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is not neutral. Article comes across as promotional in tone. Reads a bit like a hagiography. Will in the future need significant read-through and copy-editing from multiple editors previously-uninvolved with both the article and the topic.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per above, no issues here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Per above, no issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Per above, no issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Unfortunately, not GA at this time. It appears there was a woefully inadequate job to make a serious attempt to address concerns raised in the Peer Review, the 1st GA Review, and the 2nd GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations before going for another 4th GA Review

Quite sorry to say that, unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time.

I sincerely hope that the recommendations from the GA Review, above, will be helpful to editors in the future to further work on the Quality improvement process.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:

1. Go over every single point raised from all four (4) prior reviews -- the Peer review, 1st GA Review, 2nd GA Review, and now 3rd GA Review. Do your best to address all of them. Make a noted numbered list in a new section on the article's talk page explaining how you have attempted to do so for each recommendation from all the prior reviews.
2. Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
3. Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
4. Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality.
5. While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
6. While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Goodbye to Language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514221710/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/100011773/year/2014.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/100011773/year/2014.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221134354/http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/category/directors-godard/ to http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/category/directors-godard/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202071733/http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2014/09/07/adieu-au-langage-2-2-x-3d/ to http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2014/09/07/adieu-au-langage-2-2-x-3d/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150116192724/http://www.veritefilmmag.com/blog/zo-bruneau-and-kamel-abdeli-on-working-with-jean-luc-godard-for-goodbye-to-language to http://www.veritefilmmag.com/blog/zo-bruneau-and-kamel-abdeli-on-working-with-jean-luc-godard-for-goodbye-to-language
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204091525/http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/jonathan-rosenbaum to http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/jonathan-rosenbaum
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204090112/http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/blake-williams to http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/blake-williams
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204090630/http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/miriam-bale to http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/miriam-bale
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215052516/http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/%2A to http://www.indiewire.com/survey/indiewire-2014-year-end-critics-poll/best-film/%2A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023133531/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/awardCompetition.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/awardCompetition.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150130193745/http://www.tiff.net/festivals/thefestival/programmes/masters/goodbye-to-language-3d to http://www.tiff.net/festivals/thefestival/programmes/masters/goodbye-to-language-3d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202152301/http://www.wildbunch.biz/films/goodbye_to_language_3d to http://www.wildbunch.biz/films/goodbye_to_language_3d

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)