Talk:La Strada/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days, unless my library has a copy, in which case I may wait slightly longer so I can rewatch it. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, this looks like quality stuff, and a likely candidate for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I'm making some tweaks to the prose as I go; feel free to revert any to which you object. I'll list action points below as I go; let me know your thoughts on them.

• "leaving the director pale and shaken and his wife, the picture's star, in tears" -- this seems like more finely-grained detail than necessary for the lead, which should be a quick summary per WP:LEAD. Would you object to cutting it? (Oddly, looking down in the article, this incident seems to be discussed in more detail in the lead section than in the body; perhaps this detail could be moved down?)

 Done re-located from lead to "reception" section.Jburlinson (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "one of the most popular films in cinema history" -- could you clarify what this means? Ticket sales, audience polls, critical approval? I realize it's a critical darling, but it'd surprise me if this remains one of the most widely-viewed films in cinema.

 Done replaced phrase with a quote from the AFI web site -- "one of the most influential films ever made". Does this help?Jburlinson (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "But when Gelsomina offers the possibility of marriage, Zampanò brushes her off." -- she proposes to marry Zampano, right, not to marry someone generally (or to marry the fool)?

• That wasn't unclear in the first place. Why would Zampano brush her off if she was going to marry the fool? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done re-worded sentence.

• File:Lastradamasina.jpg appears to need a tag for its US copyright status.

 Done replaced by alternate image with creative commons license from Wikimedia Commons Jburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.richardbasehart.com/ appears to be a self-published source; it doesn't seem to me to qualify as a reliable source. This material will need a more reliable citation or to be cut.

 Done Better RS found.Jburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• " improvise some ingenious solutions" -- "ingenious" here is a minor bit of judgement/POV; could you simply say "Funding shortages required Giacosi to improvise in response to Fellini's demands"

 DoneJburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Fellini claimed that" -- rewritten as "stated" per WP:WTW

More in a bit... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Film analysts have remarked on the tendency of Italian films of the post-war period to allow considerable freedom in the synching of voices to lip movements, especially in contrast to Hollywood's perceived "obsessive fixation" with the matching of voices to mouths" -- unless this work is talking specifically about La Strada at this point, this may be a small bit of original research to include this author here.

 Done re-worded to clarify focus on Fellini's work Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• [46]:p.85 --why does the citation style switch here? It's not necessary to clean this up to attain GA, but you might clean up just for clarity/consistency's sake.

 Done Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "When discussing standard Hollywood sound editing, cultural critic Mary Ann Doane has noted that, "synchronization and totality are fetishes and the inseparability of sound and image are posited as a goal"." -- again, unless this critic is talking about La Strada directly here, bringing in unrelated works is a bit of OR

• In what respect is it OR? It's not the writer's opinion and it's on the subject at hand. One may ask why there is a general discussion of European sound technique in an article about a film, but it's not OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Passage has been re-worded. Is this better? Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Ring, it was OR in the sense that WP:OR states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this case, combining Doane's point with a Strada-specific source advances an argument (the difference between Fellini's editing and what Doane sees as standard) that's not made by either source; if the Strada source discusses Hollywood editing the same way as Doane, her quotation is unnecessary anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see which conclusion is made by our editor that is not in any of the sources since our editor restates what the sources say (apparently). A contrast is made between Fellini and Hollywood in matters of technique. No problem and appropriate to discuss here. That the point about Hollywood methodology mentions how extreme their technique was only makes the contrast more clear. Again, no problem. The two are different. How different? Very different. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, I'd argue that you shouldn't bring in sources that don't discuss the article's subject because you want to emphasize a contrast beyond the emphasis it gets in topic-specific sources. We could bring in a quotation about how James Cameron made Avatar to implicitly contrast his methods with Fellini's, for example, but that to me is original research unless it appears in a source on Fellini/Strada. It's best to just rely on the sources about Strada and not do independent research on, for example, Hollywood sound editing. In any case, I think the version that Jburlinson still makes the point sufficiently without needing to go to non-Strada writings, so this seems resolved. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Reception" -- since this section seems only to discuss contemporary critics, you might call it "Contemporary reception" or "initial reception" or some such; later critical discussion/reception seems to be absent here

 Done Jburlinson (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Jean Aurel cited Giulietta Masina's performance as "directly inspired by the best in Chaplin, but with a freshness and sense of timing that seem to have been invented for this film alone." He found the film "bitter, yet full of hope. A lot like life." -- this appears to need inline citation.

 DoneJburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Personal significance" -- this seems like it could be folded into other sections, such as legacy and reception; it seems a bit odd to have a catch-all section for other individual reactions.

This was a good idea, in fact. The responses of those who worked on the film is a subject many readers will find interesting, but those responses would fit uneasily in a section focused on production or reception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done "personal significance" section deleted and contents re-distributed to "reception" and "legacy". Although I personally had no problems with a section on personal significance, it doesn't seem to be consistent with the structure of other FA and GA articles. It appears as if the comments fit OK in other sections, at least to me -- but I'm certainly open to discussion. I'm just trying to come up with a GA-worthy product. Jburlinson (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. This isn't strictly necessary for GA, so if you decide later to revert, the article won't be reassessed as a result. (And I apologize for not making that clearer in my initial comment.) Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film has a standard outline for these articles that may be necessary if this advances to FA, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• "As film critic Millicent Marcus has made explicit: "La Strada remains a film indifferent to the social and historical concerns of orthodox neorealism"" -- this seems to accept Marcus's view as factual in Wikipedia's voice; it might be better to just say "Film critic Millicent Marcus wrote that,"

 DoneJburlinson (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and the same Serbian rock band took the film's name as their own on at least three separate occasions" -- this is confusing--they took the name three times? What's the source for this?

• The link to the band is there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and in any case it's better to explain clearly in this article rather than ask the reader to read the full text of another. Given that this is a bit trivial of a point anyway, it's probably best to just say "a Serbian rock band took the film's name as their own" and leave out the history of the band breaking up and reforming. But it would be best to add an inline citation for clarity; not many of the sources at La Strada (band) look reliable but surely something could be found. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I would argue the point, but not very hard. I agree it is utterly trivial -- except in this section of this article. Where else would it bear mentioning? The band's peculiar relationship to the name is brought out a little, too. (They weren't committed to it but they didn't give it up.) The scope of influence is an aspect of it and this example brings it out. (Well, maybe). --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the images, such as File:La Strada.jpg, need captions that explicitly describe their contents; the quotations can be moved into the article's text, or into separate quotation boxes.

Question: If the caption describes the contents, is it also OK to include the quotations? Jburlinson (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's unusual for Wikipedia (I realize it's not unusual for reference works generally), but I think it would be okay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• File:La Strada.jpg doesn't have a valid copyright tag; it's unlikely that User:Pabloglezcruz, the uploader, is the original creator of this poster as he claims. (Or if it is original work, why are we adding it to the article?) The poster's origin should be clarified in the caption as well. ("Poster for Italian theatrical release, c. 1956" or some such) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to find an appropriate alternative, probably another screenshot from the trailer. Jburlinson (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done replaced image with screenshot from 1956 trailer. Jburlinson (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it would help to add a section on analysis of the film--themes, influence, etc. I realize that there's some of this in "legacy", in "music", and a few other places, so I haven't decided yet if this is "main aspect" enough to be an issue under the GA criterion. Perhaps the discussion of the break with neorealism is enough. But let me poke through my film books, check a few online sources, and get back to you.

Sounds like a good idea. I think we could come up with a section on "themes", if you think it would be advisable. I'm still learning how to distinguish a GA from an FA -- so I wasn't sure whether or not a "themes" sections was GA-necessary. Jburlinson (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's on the fence. The GA criteria only require that "main aspects" be covered. Themes is surely a main aspect here, but you already touch on it in several places, so you're at least close to covering this. But like I said, I'll poke around and get back to you on this point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That should give you plenty to chew on! Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your work on this important film article. I love seeing people nominate classics like this instead of the latest scifi blockbuster! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick responses! This looks close to passing; I'd just like to make a few more checks, resolve those image/caption issues, and do a little research of my own re: themes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

All of your fixes/tweaks look great, and I think virtually everything above is resolved. File:Masina.jpg still needs a caption clarifying exactly what it is (photograph? screenshot? Artist's portrayal?). Let me go check some film books re: themes and get back to you on that point. I still need to do spotchecks for accuracy/copyvio, too, but I think that's all that remains. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I checked three general film books and all three emphasize what you do, the transition from neorealism to fabulism. So I think this is set on interpretation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	One reference seems self-contradictory -- [40]:p.185. The fn gives 161 as the page, the colon gives 185. An easy fix if you have the book, but needs to be clarified.  Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Image tags ok
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	One image still needs captioning.  Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

• This isn't a necessary action point for the GA criteria, just a suggestion: File:La-strada-trailer-1956.jpg is a bit of a dull image, since the text obscures most of the image behind it, whereas the Kempley quotation you put underneath it is great. What would you think about cutting the image and putting the quotation in Template:Quote box to give it more emphasis and visual appeal? Up to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done good idea. Jburlinson (talk)

This looks all set to me, then. Thanks for your patience with and quick responses to a lengthy review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)