Talk:Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film)/GA review

Good Article Review - May 28, 2008

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This seems to be something of a premature GA nomination, made at the same time as an assessment request was made at the film project to see if it had risen above stub status and only six days after the article was created. Strongly urge the article be expanded and "finished," then peer reviewed before making another GA nomination.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some basic grammar issues and basic prose issues. Copyediting would have greatly helped here.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Not in compliance with the Film MoS nor the general Wikipedia MoS. Others are unnecessary (film soundtrack list, without any prose, is fairly trivial). Some are missing all together, such as production, cast, etc. The references are also horribly formatted, and lacking basic information (author, date, publisher), while using created titles instead of the correct ones. {{cite web}} would be good here.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   First reference is a book, but no page numbers are given and it needs cleaning up ({{cite book}}). DVD Times does not appear to be a reliable source as it gives no indication of who runs the site or writes the content, and what their credentials are. As the whole, the article really only uses 6 references when you combine the duplicates, which is not a good indication of factual accuracy or thoroughness of coverage.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Quite a bit of basic information is missing from the article, such as production details (though I suspect "The film adaptation" is supposed to be the start of such a section?). The infobox is incomplete, there is no information on its distribution, release, etc. Again, turning to the Film MoS would have helped here.

   B. Focused:

   Can't say it isn't focused, except it is overly so.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   While there are no edit wars, with the article created only six days ago, and DYKed yesterday, its impossible to really call it "stable" when its still in creation.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Presuming commons use is factual

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image given is not an official image, but some created head shot of what I presume is some one's sketch of the main character. It adds no value to the article at all and doesn't give the reader any actual information or visual cues for identifying the work. Needs to be removed and replaced with an actual official image, such as a poster or DVD cover.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Your enthusiasm is great, but got quite a ways to go yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:36, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone consider a soundtrack list in an article about a musical film "trivial"? I would think it should be mandatory. MovieMadness (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just giving a list of the songs with no context, prose, etc doesn't really add much. A list of titles really don't mean anything to anyone who hasn't actually seen the film. As it is at the moment, its no different than putting a CD soundtrack listing in a film article, even for a musical. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. A musical is nothing without its songs. Every musical theatre article lists the songs in the score. I see no reason why an article about the film adaptation should eliminate them. And to say "A list of titles really don't (sic) mean anything to anyone who hasn't actually seen the film" isn't necessarily an accurate statement. A reader may recognize the title of a song with which he or she is familiar but never knew its source . . . and now he or she will. MovieMadness (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but how would they get here to see it? :P In either case, the list isn't the sole, or even primary reason for the GA failure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, MovieMadness is correct -- the soundtrack is the film -- it is basically a plotless musical revue. Take away the soundtrack and you have...well, just opening and closing credits. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't belong at all. I'm saying its current form seems less useful than it could be. It has no context. While this is a musical film rather than a straight musical, the Musical Theatre MoS might be helpful, in combination with the regular film one, to illustrate ways of incorporating the musical numbers into the prose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review - May 30, 2008

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This seems to be something of a premature GA nomination, made at the same time as an assessment request was made at the film project to see if it had risen above stub status and only six days after the article was created. Strongly urge the article be expanded and "finished," then peer reviewed before making another GA nomination.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article is still in need of copyediting by a THIRD party, not by its soul editor.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Article is still not in compliance with the Film MoS nor the general Wikipedia MoS. The references are still badly formatted, and lacking basic information (author, date, publisher) and are not using {{cite web}}

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Still almost completely unreferenced. Ref two is a book with no page numbers or other relevant information given, and needs to be using ({{cite book}}). Article now only has five references, and is need of many more.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The production details are spotty, it still has no info in the prose on distribution or release. Again, turning to the Film MoS would have helped here.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Same as last time, just add two days

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Quick failing, again. Far too soon to resubmit for GAN and none of the major issues that caused its previous failing have been addressed at all. Extremely inappropriate and early renomination when the article has not been fixed. To renominate so quickly shows a very poor understanding of the Good Article process and its criteria. I strongly urge the primary editor to NOT resubmit this article for GAN again until the article is actually well sourced, has achieved a B rating from the Film project and gone through the peer review process (and suggestions given there properly implemented). Continuing to resubmit will only result in said nominator possibly being "blocked" from doing GA nominations at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)