Wikipedia

Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/GA1

< Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Antidiskriminator in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago69 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply


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. The article should be copyedited at the end of GA review. Y
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The opening sentence meets WP:FILMLEAD requirements. The first paragraph and succeeding paragraphs in the lead section also. The text of the article follows the requirements of relevant manuals of style.
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. The article does provide references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources. The issues are:
  • Multiple citations are presented without authors specified. Y
  • Several dead links. Y
  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).
  2c. it contains no original research. I haven't noticed any original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. It is necessary to clarify that Okay was their important special word. Y
  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. The article is stable.
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.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  7. Overall assessment. I think that the article is very near GA status. After a couple of non-resolved issues stipulated above are resolved (hopefully within a week) I will ask somebody from GOCE to copy edit the article. After the copy edit is completed I will pass the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Copy editing of the article is completed. I think that two cn tags and a couple of assertions which should be clarified are more of improvement opportunities than obstacles for reaching GA status, so I will promote this article to GA status. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

General remarks

edit
  • I don't want to impose my personal opinion. I might be wrong here. That is why it is necessary to achieve consensus grounded in common sense, sources and wikipedia policies. I don't propose to present judgement if movie or book is better, but to present a brief information if film closely follows the book or not, and to explain if there are some things that exist in the book, but not in the movie, etc... I think that if plenty of sources discuss this aspect I guess its probably important? If it is, then the article should address it to comply to criteria 3a of WP:GACR. Thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I proposed "a brief information", not a complete new section with a bullet list of differences which is too much and violate WP:FILMDIFF "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." A brief information (not bullet list) if film closely follows the book or not (with short explanation) is completely enough. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I haven't read the book or saw the film, so I don't know what exactly to say about it. I just noticed it is one of the most discussed aspects of the film. Its on the T-shirts, shoes, notebooks,... so it probably is worth mentioning. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Actually it was the word used as the last word in the film, it was the word used as the last word of Augustus' letter to Hazel, and it was used by Hazel when she responded on hearing Gus' death. So probably that's why it is worth mentioning. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Notice: Because of unplanned trip I will probably not be able to continue and complete this review during next 4-5 days. When I return from the trip I will continue with the review. My preliminary opinion is that the article meets GA criteria, except probably the first one (it is necessary to be checked for grammar and general clarity of the prose) which should be easy to resolve with some help of some skilled editor, i.e. from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at the end of reviewing process.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • There are many citations without information about the author of the source. Taking in consideration that in many cases the author is known and presented in the source, I think it should be easy to add information about the author to such citations and resolve this issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC) YReply
  • MOS:LAYOUT says that external links "should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section." This film's pages at Metacritic, Rotten Tomato, Box Office Mojo and IMDb websites are already used as sources for the text of this article so they should not be duplicated in the External links section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  YReply
C, is that request addressed to me? Thoughts below.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … …  … ps re above: I understand that IMDb should NOT be used as a source (but can be an external link). Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
NOTE Boone described the casting: "Over 250 girls read for the part, but it wasn't until Shailene stepped in front of the camera that I truly saw Hazel for the first time", this is in both the Cast & Casting sections, some other items in the Cast section, don't seem to be about the character they play.
Yes Pincrete. Please let me know when you think that copy editing is completely performed. Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Antidiskriminator, will do, I'm mainly tidying phrasing/grammar, modifying terms that are TOO informally 'filmy' (promo/red carpet etc.). There are a few questions below that need the attention of someone who KNOWS the film/book, I've checked with sources for other parts, but cannot for these. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC) … ps tidying is nearly complete, but I need answers to some questions below. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fault_in_Our_Stars_(film)/GA1&oldid=967087053"