Talk:Moonrise Kingdom/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 07:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Grabbing this for review, will get some thoughts here shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just some small things I'd like addressed to improve the article from where it is (which is already very good):

• The last three paragraphs of the development section could probably just be one.
  • Willing to meet you half-way in joining two paras, but the third dealing with the financial doesn't fit with writing.

Okay, that's fine. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, the two paragraphs on child actors in the casting section can be combined.
  • OK Ribbet32 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keitel is not sourced as being in the film.
  • He is now. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• There are a few big quotes in the pre-production that could be paraphrased better.
  • adamstom97 Attempted to address this Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• The soundtrack section mentions Britten once before properly introducing him with wikilink.
  • "English composer"?

I meant that you introduce Britten in the second paragraph of the section, but already mention him in the first. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

OK Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Are there any responses to the controversies from the filmmakers? Or even direct responses from other commentators that offer good rebukes/alternative opinions?
  • No responses that I know of, but I think it's balanced enough "Delicate and Inoffensive", "Not quite child exploitation"; "Isle of Dogs remedies". Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• I suggest the notes actually be formatted as normal references, with use of the quote field, and be combined sort of like this (I believe this works, and stops these few examples from being so much more emphasised over the rest of the references):

<ref>
 * {{cite ... }}
 * {{cite ... }}
 * {{cite ... }}
 </ref>

• • adamstom97 those Cite templates are used throughout the article. The only exception is with Template:Sfn refs which are necessary to link to the page number, avoiding material redundant in the bibliography. See WP:IBID and WP:CITESHORT. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I know, I'm saying the notes should each be a single reference in the normal reference section, combining the cite templates in the style I indicated above. As they are now, you are putting way too much emphasis on them over the rest of the references when they are not any more significant than those. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what you're getting at here, but the references are formatted in accordances with WP:GA? #2 and MOS:FNNR. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, my problem is that you are emphasising these above all the other references, but I don't see anything special about them. They should just be normal references like all the others. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Notes section? That's not for "special" references. Notes sections are common across Wikipedia (George McGovern, Art pop, Carrie (2002 film)) not to give "special emphasis" to references but to add additional explanation- WP:EXPLNOTE. "Why were the kids' performances were praised? Who compared it to Lord of the Flies? Isn't that weasel words"? Those are the questions that come up. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what Notes are, that's the problem. Your Notes section does not have notes in it, it has references for critical analysis. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Notes on critical analysis (with references) aren't notes? Putting them at the bottom of the article gives them emphasis over everything in the article? Sorry, it's just hard to understand where you're coming from Ribbet32 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

They aren't notes on critical analysis, they are references. There is nothing about these "Notes" that actually note anything. All you are doing is making a statement, providing several references to support it, and then putting those references in a "Notes" section. For example, the first "note" is Jon Frosch: "Sam pierces Suzy's ears with fish hooks, adorning her with hand-crafted insect earrings as a fine stream of blood trickles down her neck (a mutual deflowering by proxy)." Nothing there notes anything, all you are doing is highlighting a quote which you are using to source a statement in the article. The cite template has a quote parametre specifically for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's just about everything I have, I think. I particularly like the use of bibliography (I am used to dealing mostly with internet sources), and the well done Theme and Style sections. Give this stuff a go, and let me know when you are done or if you have any questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that my concerns have been addressed, this article has passed . - adamstom97 (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)