Talk:Suspiria (2018 film)/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of horror movies and have no interest in watching this film, but the article looks like a lot of good work has been put into it so I'm intrigued enough to take this review. I should be back soon with some thoughts on the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So, it might be a little early for this review, but the article is in good shape and there are obviously dedicated editors here who will make the small updates necessary moving forward (mostly in the reception section), so I am happy to promote the article to GA as long as a few issues are addressed. First, some small things:
- Why not just list all of Swinton's roles in the lead instead of just two?
- I don't think a cameo appearance needs to be noted in the first paragraph of the lead.
- The first paragraph of the development section could probably be rearranged to be more in chronological order than it is now, which is a bit mixed up.
- Accolades are a form of reception, so I think it makes more sense to have them come under the reception section.
I might come up with some more stuff later, but for now my bigger concern is the amount of direct quoting that is happening in the article at the moment. There is a lot of room for paraphrasing and copy-editing to clean-up these throughout. I am currently looking at the copyvio detector that is available from this review page above, and there are several articles that are being directly quoted a bit too much. If you can work on all the quote instances and try get them down a bit then that will be a good start for the article. Let me know how you go with all of this, or if you have any questions. Good luck, adamstom97 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Thank you for this; I will work on trimming direct quotes and paraphrasing over the next few days here once the holiday is through. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, just let me know here when you are ready for me to have another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: I believe I've addressed your comments above. Per the copyvio concerns, I've run the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the two sources that were tagged over the 40%-mark were the Richard Brody (The New Yorker) and Simon Goldberg (Collider) ones, so I attempted to excise any extraneous details from those quotes while still maintaining the core sentiment expressed in them. I also cut down/paraphrased a handful of others as well. I've since run it through Copyvio Detector again and it is still hitting on the Goldberg source at a 66% confidence. There is one blockquote from the Goldberg piece, followed a bit later by a second quote consisting of a couple sentences; I'm not sure what the consensus is on how these results are generated, or what exactly is to be done in this situation (this is, weirdly enough, actually the first time I've used Copyvio Detector in all these years on Wikipedia). If more trimming needs to be done here, I'll be sure to get at it. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that Collider source is fine since it is mostly for that big blockquote, which I think is useful. My general feeling about the article at the moment is that you have done a pretty great job, especially to meet the good article criteria. I think you could continue to work on some of the prose elements in terms of copy-editing and stuff, but that is mostly if you wanted to push the article for FA status. As it is, I am happy to pass
this review. Congratulations, and well done. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that Collider source is fine since it is mostly for that big blockquote, which I think is useful. My general feeling about the article at the moment is that you have done a pretty great job, especially to meet the good article criteria. I think you could continue to work on some of the prose elements in terms of copy-editing and stuff, but that is mostly if you wanted to push the article for FA status. As it is, I am happy to pass
- @Adamstom.97: I believe I've addressed your comments above. Per the copyvio concerns, I've run the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and the two sources that were tagged over the 40%-mark were the Richard Brody (The New Yorker) and Simon Goldberg (Collider) ones, so I attempted to excise any extraneous details from those quotes while still maintaining the core sentiment expressed in them. I also cut down/paraphrased a handful of others as well. I've since run it through Copyvio Detector again and it is still hitting on the Goldberg source at a 66% confidence. There is one blockquote from the Goldberg piece, followed a bit later by a second quote consisting of a couple sentences; I'm not sure what the consensus is on how these results are generated, or what exactly is to be done in this situation (this is, weirdly enough, actually the first time I've used Copyvio Detector in all these years on Wikipedia). If more trimming needs to be done here, I'll be sure to get at it. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, just let me know here when you are ready for me to have another look. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
