Talk:Tucker: The Man and His Dream/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick-fail criteria. On to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I have made some copy-edits, but attention is needed to the following:

   Plot: ...causes Karatz to resign who was convicted of bank fraud, explaining that the SEC would use it against Tucker. is completely ungrammatical and makes no sense.

   On his final date of his trial,... We still have ...causes Karatz to resign who was once convicted of bank fraud. This makes no sense at all. Y

• See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

1. Production: Director Francis Ford Coppola conceived the idea to make a film .... to?

   ... which resulted into Bernstein already writing one song.' already?

   ...Capra disagreed with Coppola concerning the characterization of Tucker as a dreamer, whom Capra thought was a failure. Ungrammatical.

   Although Coppola explained that he overall enjoyed the final result of the film and his relationship with Lucas... Ungrammatical. Y

• Actually, not an entirely accurate statement based on a re-reading of the reference source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

1. Although providing major additions in rewriting the Schulman and Seidler scripts, Coppola's work was uncredited when...' Ungrammatical.

   Distributors were also cautious to work with Lucas after... Ungrammatical.

   Lucas and Coppola each own two Tuckers, irreverently called the "Tin Goose". Nonsensical, what does this mean? All four cars are called the Tin Goose? Its a generic nickname? What? - Clarify please.

   Despite helming his "labor of love," Coppola was insistent that Tucker... would be his last Hollywood project,... ungrammatical. Y

• See changes made in sentence structuring; most of the final statement is derived from a source and encompasses a quote. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

1. Historical accuracy: Coppola was adamant to include... to?

   The preeminent judges of the film were the legion of Tucker owners and collectors... POV phrasing.

   Overall the prose is very poor, I recommend a comprehensive re-write and copy-edit to bring it up to Good Article status. Please pay especial attention to the Plot section which should be shortened and simplified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Some remaining issues. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Y

• Please be specific, the section has been "pruned." FwiW Bzuk (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC).

1. b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • I fixed a couple of redirects, all online references check. I assume Good Faith for print sources.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Query on one phrase in prose section above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, it comes dow to the prose which simply isn't good enough at the moment. I'm putting the article on hold for seven days so that it can be fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
   • Please take another look as there things that were missed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, this is fine now. I printed it out and completely re-read it. Thanks for your hard work. The prose is readable now, although further copy-editing may be neccessary to achieve Featured Article status if that is what you wish to do. Congratulations you have a good article.

Thanks for the review. I believe the concerns have been addressed now, but you should check to see. Wildroot (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I thought I might pop in to mention that according to WP:WTUT the cast listing should not be in tables as it's to simple of a list. It should be changed to a bullet format. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Wildroot (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the use of lists vs tables is not established and the above comment is fallacious, although for the purposes of the GA review, the change can remain. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC).