Talk:Let's All Go to the Lobby/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 17:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Nominator: Reidgreg (talk · contribs)

Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are some courtesy links:

• GA1 review from May 2020 (failed, nominator unresponsive),
• Old revision of Let's All Go to the Lobby link to the article as nominated.

Thanks for your quick review; I'll start reading it and work on the article now. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

First pass

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review of this version.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The legacy and popular culture sections need to be more fully summarized in the lead. The lead should also be reorganized so that it follows the structure of the article and cites are unneeded in the lead as long as everything is substantiated and cited in the body. Please fix MOS:SAID issues throughout. Snipe should not need to be italicized.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   Everything that needs an inline cite has one and all sources are reliable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See spot check below.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Looks good per Earwig.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Looks like the main aspects are covered, but I did a quick search on TWL and there might be some more sources that you can cite from there.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

   No issues on talk page or in article history.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   The fair use rationale should note that the image is described and analyzed in the "Content" section of the article.

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

   Although not required for GA, it would be good to add alt text to the image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Spot check for source-text integrity:

• All citations to ref 3 in content section pass.
• Ref 3f: pass
• Refs 3g and 8: pass-ish (see note below)
• Ref 7b: pass-ish (see note below)
• Refs 4b, 5, 10: pass
• Ref 11: pass
• Refs 13 and 14: pass

General suggestions:

• The last paragraph of the "Content" section only needs to cite ref 3 once at the end of the paragraph.
  • I did try to reduce the number of citations to Eagan (3). In the case of that paragraph, the extra citation is for the end of the quotation. Verification policy requires that all quotations have an inline citation. Quotation example 3 at WP:QUOTE illustrates this situation (with a single source being cited twice in one paragraph due to a quotation). WP:MINREF confirms that inline citation is required for direct quotations.

• MOS:SAID and to introduce Daniel Eagan:

−

Daniel Eagan argues that

+

The film writer Daniel Eagan has said that

• I changed this to "film historian" so as not to cause filmwriter/screenwriter confusion.

• For conciseness RE refs 3g and 8:

−

The [[Chicago]]-based Filmack Studios, originally known as Filmack Trailer Company, was founded in 1919 by Irving Mack. The company specialized in the production of [[Newsreel|newsreels]] and [[Promotion (marketing)|promotional material]] for theaters. A short film of this type is known as a [[Snipe (theatrical)|''snipe'']], which is defined as material displayed on a [[projection screen]] without being part of the [[Feature film|featured presentation]]. This includes [[advertising]] material, [[Trailer (promotion)|previews of coming attractions]], courtesy requests for the audience, and notices concerning the [[concession stand]] of the [[movie theater]].

+

The [[Chicago]]-based Filmack Studios, originally known as Filmack Trailer Company, was founded in 1919 by Irving Mack. The company specialized in the production of [[snipe (theatrical)|snipe]]s, an industry term for [[newsreel|newsreel]]s, [[Promotion (marketing)|promotional materials]], [[advertising|advertisements]], [[Trailer (promotion)|previews of coming attractions]], courtesy requests for the audience, and notices concerning the [[concession stand]] of the [[movie theater]].

• Good call, done.

• For specificity ("significant" is vague) and to better align with ref 8:

−

represented a significant portion of movie theaters' [[revenue]].

+

represented approximately 20% of movie theaters' [[revenue]].

• I added the year: "In 1951, the sales of concessions stands represented approximately 20% of a movie theatre's revenue." and included a footnote to convey the trend of its increasing importance.

• Attribute RE ref 7b:

−

and it is likely the most-viewed snipe.

+

and the film writer Daniel Eagan has said that it is likely the most-viewed snipe.

• Change "Dan Eagan" to "Eagan" since he was introduced earlier.

  I kept "Daniel Egan" on first mention in lead and body, and "Eagan" otherwise.

Placing this on hold. Nice work. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts and @Reidgreg I have went ahead and finished up all the other minor edits as Reidgreg fortunately integrated the ref 3g and 8 edits, the other stuff was just minor CE really. Good luck on getting this to a GA guys and again, congrats Reidgreg. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dcdiehardfan: Is it a normal practice to jump in and edit an article under GA review when the nominator has already stated an intention to respond and make changes to the article? Sounds like a quick way to cause edit conflicts.

I've worked through most of the review (first pass) offline, worked a little on the image fair use rationale, and will try to get the rest addressed and then look over the changes made by Dcdiehardfan, merge that with my changes, and post my changes. The added complication will necessitate a little more time. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Reidgreg I'm not sure if it's "normal" per se, as I can't speak for anyone else on that matter, but I've seen other people assist GA nominators in getting it to GA and helping out with minor things and it is not precluded as per WP:GAN/I#N4 stating Other editors are also welcome to comment and work on the article, but the final decision on listing will be with the first reviewer. This is just my opinion, but to me, it sounds like a good way to expedite the GA process.

That's good, this article is very close to GA. To clarify, nothing significant has been changed, only minor CE editing to match the GAR recs as done above; it's not like a significantly reworked the article or anything lol. Here's a link to the diff [1]. I just adjusted the WP:SAID stuff to fix the Dan Eagan things and changed the "significant portion" to 20%, that's basically it. I believe this should save time in the end as you can focus on other things in the meantime, and should take at most like 2-3 minutes maybe? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, well, I don't have any 'ownership' of the article and (aside from blocks and protections) any editor is allowed to edit any article at any time. However, when a GA nominator writes on the GA review page that they're responding to the review (i.e.: making thorough changes to the entire article), I feel it's bad form and disruptive to knowingly interrupt that by making edits to the article some 90 minutes after the nominator posted their intentions. I feel this goes for any article that is actively undergoing editing. After going over your changes, I reverted your edit because it was simpler to overwrite it with my changes than to merge the two. So, no, it didn't expedite the process but rather consumed more volunteer time all around. BTW: My approach isn't merely to robotically edit the article as the reviewer suggested, but to evaluate the suggestions in the context of the whole article, policies, guidelines, and the article sources, and then edit as appropriate to improve the article.

If you have some original ideas about improving the article, please feel free to post them here (as discussion). As for directly editing the article, I'd ask you to hold that unless I become unable to continue with the process. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've done a little copy editing and the fair use rationale looks good. I will be passing this. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Finished responses to your first pass. There are some comments above. I didn't want to mess up the GA criteria checklist, so responding to some other points here:

• re: MOS, I initially italicized snipe as a technical term, per MOS:TERM, but I agree that it works fine in context, without this styling.
• re: infobox image, I linked the Content section on the image page. I'm not great with image protocols. For example, I know that the copyright is owned by Filmack Studios with a release year of 1957, but I don't know where to put that on the file page. I did not upload the image.
• re: alt text, I felt that alt text would simply repeat the existing caption and/or the description in the text.
• I added a bit more to the lead, with citations just for the alternate title (doesn't appear in the body) and the inclusion quote for the NFR.

Back to you for your next pass. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.