Talk:Precious (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Ciao, I am here to finally review this article for GA status. I've reviewed several articles before, and written a film GA recently, so I have a good understanding of what is involved. My usual method for GA reviewing is to post an initial list of minor improvements and general comments and once those are resolved or dismissed, checking the article against the GA criteria. I tend to be quite strict on the criteria themselves but very flexible on allowing whatever time or help editors need to bring the article up to standard. How tough or comprehensive my review will be depends on whether editors are looking simply to get the article up to basic decent standards or to push for highest possible standards and perhaps featured status. I hope to leave my initial comments over the next few days and, all going well, judge the article against the criteria later in the week. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

The following are some scattered comments on my first skim of the article, and I will likely follow with more. They relate mostly to stylistic issues; you might find MOS:FILM helpful as a guide. My initial impression of the article is that it is admirably comprehensive and with due attention to structure and style has the potential to be an excellent resource on the subject.

Prose issues

• Try to keep the prose fresh and engaging by avoid the unnecessary repetition of phrases. For instance:

• 'The film's mainly female cast features Gabourey Sidibe as the title character, and Mo'Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz' (Lead section, 1st paragraph)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'Lions Gate released the film in North America on November 6, 2009 in limited release, widening the release on November 20. The film was released to largely positive reviews' (Lead section, 3rd paragraph)

 Done Re-worded to "Lions Gate gave the film a limited release, which would be expanded on November 20, in North America on November 6, 2009. The film received largely positive reviews from critics;" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'Precious was screened during the 2009 Sundance Film Festival from January 15, 2009 until January 25 in Park City, Utah.[32] While the film was screened at Sundance, Precious was listed under its original...' (Marketing, 1st paragraph)

 Done Re-worded to "Precious was screened during the 2009 Sundance Film Festival from January 15, 2009 until January 25 in Park City, Utah.[2] At Sundance, Precious was listed under" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'Lionsgate, in association with Matriarch/Geffen Records released the soundtrack online as a digital download on November 3, 2009,[29] and released the soundtrack in stores on November 23.' (Music, 2nd paragraph)

 Done Re-worded to "Lionsgate, in association with Matriarch/Geffen Records released the soundtrack online as a digital download on November 3, 2009,[6] and in stores on November 23.[3][5]" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Stated" is similarly overused; neutral synonyms which might be more appropriate in some cases include "remarked", "commented", and "described" (caveat).

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Another instance is the repetition of 'the film'; this one is difficult to avoid, but can be done with more balanced uses of Precious, "the production" (for the pre-release time period) and pronouns.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency: Is the lead character's name 'Claireece "Precious" Jones' (Plot, 1st paragraph; Cast, 1st paragraph) or 'Claireece Precious Jones' (Cast, list)? Is the shorthand '"Precious"' (Cast, 1st paragraph) or simply 'Precious' (Plot, 1st paragraph)? Is the possessive form 'Precious's' (Plot, 1st paragraph) or 'Precious''? These changes can be distracting and confusing for the reader.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Avoid using the passive voice where you can. Statements like 'The film was given a $10 million production budget' (Production, 2nd paragraph) leave the reader wondering who the giver is.

 Done Re-worded to "The film was made on a $10 million budget.[7]" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Section development: The focus of the Production section seems a little odd. Often such sections are structured chronologically or thematically, but here we jump from the producers/screenwriters [September 2007]/censor's rating (1st para) to screening [January 2009]/distribution deals/budget/release [November 2009] (2nd para) to lawsuits over distribution [February 2009] (3rd para) to filming/personnel [no time period given]. It's up to you to choose the means of structuring the section, but that choice should be evident to the reader so that it is coherent and the story of the production progresses naturally.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tense: The article can't decide whether to refer to the film in the past, present or future tense.

• 'The film is directed by Lee Daniels and co-produced by Daniels' company' (Production, 1st paragraph)
• 'Precious was the first theatrical film to be affiliated with Perry's company.' (Production, 2nd paragraph)
• 'Lionsgate Music confirmed that United States' recording artists Queen Latifah and Mahalia Jackson have recorded songs that will appear on the film's soundtrack'

One way to resolve this is to put everything outside of the plot in past tense, so as to avoid potentially dated claims. So instead of 'The film holds the record for ____[reference: January 2010]', you could write 'As of January 2010, the film held the record for_____'

 Done Re-worded to "The film was directed by Lee Daniels and co-produced by", "United States' recording artists Queen Latifah and Mahalia Jackson recorded songs for the film's soundtrack.[5]" and "As of January 2010, the film held the record for being the first theatrical film to" Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Context issues

• Quotation and attribution: when quoting, unless it is obvious from the context who is being quoted, try to attribute the author/speaker of the quote (and not only where it was published). In the sentence 'Winfrey, a producer of the film, used her status as both a celebrity and a media personality to give the film a "high-profile promotional push"' [Marketing, 2nd paragraph] I don't know without checking if it is Winfrey or a journalist who is being quoted. Later in that paragraph there is a great example of proper attribution and context in the sentence beginning 'Katie Walmsley of CNN state, based on the film's positive reception at the Toronto Film Festival, that the film...'. It's fine to say [in the 2nd paragraph of Music] 'People Magazine Daily noted' because the source credits no author(s), but the Rolling Stone quote comes from a review by Peter Travers, and should be attributed as such. On that note, it is better scholarly practice to cite the original source (i.e. that last link) rather than promotional material which excerpts it, so as to give the proper context to readers following up our references.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Background information. Most readers of the English Wikipedia are neither American nor film buffs; while Oprah Winfrey needs no introduction, Tyler Perry and Un Certain Regard will leave many readers clicking away from the article in order to be able to get a basic understanding of the sentences in which these terms appear. A brief, well-chosen description (Tyler Perry, black comedian/entertainment mogul; Un Certain Regard, an award recognising unique or innovative films) is all that is required. This is done well with the R-rating, for instance; while most Americans will be very familiar with what this means and might find an explanation distracting, non-Americans can gather from the allusions to sex and violence that it is an adult rating. The article also does a good job of describing what 'Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics"' are [Critical reception, 1st paragraph], but who is S. James Snyder [Marketing, 1st paragraph]?

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• File:Mariah Carey by David Shankbone.jpg and File:Harlem 135 street buildings.jpg are stacking. You can fix this by changing one of the to the left, moving one of them further up or down the page, or by setting the size to "upright".

 Done I moved File:Harlem 135 street buildings.jpg to the left. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The awards table is quite long. Have you considered splitting it into a dedicated list?

I strongly considered that but overall choose not to because with the list the page isn't too long and/or has too many references, kind of like Changelings. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all for now.  Skomorokh  07:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help and input. I think that I've corrected all the problems you've listed above, if there are anymore please let me know, thanks. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice work so far! I feel the article is not far from GA status. The main obstacle at the moment is the sourcing.  Skomorokh  02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing

All comments below refer to this version of the article. For the following sources, please explain how they meet our guideline on reliable sources or remove them from the article:

• travel.gay.com (dead link)  Done I removed the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• The-Numbers.com  Done I removed the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Radio Free Entertainment I think this reference should be kept because it's an interview with one of the films cast members, Paula Patton. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rap-Up.com  Done I removed the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Digital Spy  Done I removed the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Black Voices  Done I removed the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Film Misery  Done I removed the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,  Skomorokh  02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your input on the article, I've corrected the problems listed above, if there are any more problems with the page please let me know. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 09:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   List of awards and nominations received by Precious (film) is duplicated here; if you are going to maintain a separate list (which I think is a good idea), only the major awards and nominations ought to be summarized in this article. It should not take up more than two paragraphs of prose. As far as prose quality is concerned, I still think the article could use a copyedit from an experienced outsider, but it is of GA standard.

 Done I moved the films award and nominations into the page, List of awards and nominations received by Precious (film) and on the films page I re-worded the two paragraph summary of the awards into one paragraph. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Good work addressing the sourcing issues, but I notice you cite the trivia section of IMDb. There is little agreement on which parts of that website are reliable sourced, and I am lenient when citing awards or cast lists, but the trivia section is user-contributed, and definitely not reliable.

 Done I removed all IMDb trivia references and removed the information that was cited by the reference. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The coverage here is very well done.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Ideally, it would be good to thread the disagreeing reviewers comments after each other in the Reception section (rather than separating positive from negative), but as far as GA standard goes I have no concerns here.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Precious2009poster.jpg could use a more convincing fair use rationale, but the use itself (poster in infobox) has a lot of precedent. The use of images in this article is unusually good for a modern film article, well done.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, an impressive article that with a bit of work could become a featured article. Once the sourcing and the awards section are updated I don't foresee any obstacles to passing this review.  Skomorokh  20:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

   Given the improvements I am happy to pass the article. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Regards,  Skomorokh  21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)