Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Skin & Bone/1

Skin & Bone edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: List as GA per improvements to article and agreement from original reviewer. Geometry guy 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer failed the article based on criteria 1 and 3. Perhaps I'm taking the critique of the writing quality too hard since I am the primary author of the piece, but the writing does not seem sub-standard to me. Regarding criterion 3, the fail reason appears to be that the article does not contain information that explains the "contextualization" of the film in relation to other films on the same subject. In all of the film articles I have had promoted to GA, the only other time that I have been asked for contextual/historical information was for Boys in the Sand and that was because I was asserting that the film occupies a seminal place in the history of pornography. No such claim has been made here, although I believe the reviewer mistakenly thought that there was because the article originally included mention of two similar films released in the same year. I don't believe that "contextualization" is required under the GA criterion of "broadness." The reviewer fears that the plot summary dominates the article, however, the plot summary accounts for approximately 1/3 of the article, which seems reasonable. Additionally, the reviewer did extensive restructuring and rewriting of the article in the course of the review and, rather than failing it, should have asked for a second opinion since he had become a major contributer to the article. I asked him to request a second opinion but that request was declined. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad that this article has been put up for reassessment, as I had more than half a mind to submit it myself. I certainly thought that a better solution than simply seeking a second opinion. (In any case, my understanding of the GA Review process is that reviewers are actively encouraged to intervene to improve an article, and that such intervention does not disqualify their review.)
I should note also that I suggested this was a marginal fail. Had the primary contributor not already indicated that he was not interested in investing more time into the article, I would have kept it on hold so it could have been improved further.
What's at issue may be a question of genre. Up until know I have mainly reviewed literature articles, and there seems to me little question that were this an article about a novel, it would be failed for consisting only of a plot summary and critical reviews. I suggested at least one source, and also the kinds of sources that I thought would be needed for some form of contextualization.
I added a section on themes, and suggested that a section on (effectively) "Background" was important, and also (as I myself read the reviews, which made much of the film's stylistic idiosyncracies) on "Style."
I also stated from the start that it seemed to me that as this was almost bound to be a relatively short article, in which there are relatively few reliable sources beyond newspaper reviews, all the more effort should be put into ensuring that the prose was up to scratch. This may be something of a personal take, but it seems to me to stand to reason that an article can try to compensate for deficiencies in one area by going the extra mile in another. The plot summary is not only long but also, as I found when I tried to reorganize it, confusing, in that (as the primary contributor remarked on the talk page) I had clearly misunderstood what it described.
But it would be good to hear other voices, to reach some consensus on what is expected of an article of this kind, about a relatively recent film that was not necessarily either a critical or a commerical success. (Which does not mean that it is not notable or not worthy of a Good Article, of course.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify some points above, I did not suggest that I was uninterested in investing more time in this article. What I said was that the suggestion offered by the reviewer (that a "contextualization section" was needed) did not strike me as falling under GA requirements. The reviewer is miscategorizing the article as it existed at the time it was submitted for GAC. It did not consist solely of a plot summary and critical response section. It also included (and still includes) a production section. Reviewer took information from that section and the critical response section to build the "themes" section. This complaint about the length of the plot summary I simply find unsustainable. This is an almost two-hour film, that includes extremely complex interrealationships between the main characters along with near-constant shifts between fantasy and reality. It accounts for 1/3 of the article. I don't think that 1/3 of the article, meaning that 2/3 are intro, production, critical response and themes, is so very overwhelming. The length of the plot summary falls within the guidelines of WP:FILM. Otto4711 (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses, and then I'll shut up. Apologies first if I misread you in thinking that you were uninterested to proceed further with this article. But I certainly felt some kind of deadlock, and that you'd felt you'd gone as far as you were willing to go; in your words, that you'd "already put far more energy into the topic than [you] care[d] to." Apologies also for misrepresenting the original state of the article: it did indeed have a production section: this is what it looked like, and as I've said it's come a long way since then. It's also true that MOS:FILM is completely silent on themes, context, or even style. I only discovered that recently, and left a rather surprised note here. So as I say, what may be at issue in part is genre. On the other hand, film FA articles are not significantly different from literature FA articles, though their focus is thematic rather than stylistic, and on legacy more than on influences. Anyhow, once more, I'd be pleased to hear a broader response. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses to your repsonses and then I'll shut up too. 1) The "far more energy" comment was specifically regarding whether or not the image in the article was a poster or a DVD cover. 2) This was not an attempt to promote the article to FA but to GA and I wonder, based on your comments both at the review and here, if you were applying standards more stringent than are required under GA criteria. Otto4711 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's what I hope this GAR will determine. --15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The article is pretty good in its current incarnation, but the plot summary does rather dominate the article. It should probably be cut fairly drastically to maintain balance. As a comparison, look at American Graffiti (a GA and landmark film, with a plot summary of around half the length of this one). Also (as a minor nitpick), the image filename should be descriptive rather than a string of numbers. EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List as GA. This article could be improved. The prose is still weak in places, and the plot could be trimmed and copyedited, although I don't think it should be cut drastically (what is the benefit to the reader?); the plot section of American Graffiti is rather too short for my taste. The article might benefit from more discussion of the genre and context. However, compensating "for deficiencies in one area by going the extra mile in another" is not a GA requirement, and I don't find any of these problems compelling enough to fail, hence my recommendation to list. As an aside, I would note that reviewers are encouraged to help to fix issues with articles under review: we're all on the same side here, namely, improving the encyclopedia. With that in mind, whether the article is listed or not, further improvements (by anyone!) would be very welcome. Geometry guy 09:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any specific suggestions regarding what parts of the prose you think are weak. Otto4711 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully concede that the plot is within WP:MOSFILM guidelines (hence my earlier comment rather than !vote); however, as a stylistic point I believe the degree of detail it goes into is unnecessary and its length unbalances the article. This is a preference though, not an argument for not listing... to clarify, I have no real problem with this being listed as a GA. EyeSerene^talk 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited lead and plot section, shaving off 130 bytes, but I may have introduced errors, and I'm not the best copyeditor in the world. Please see the diffs for suggestions on improving prose. Basically, the rules of the game are: find a good subject for each sentence, use a straightforward verb, eliminate unnecessary words, and don't editorialize. For example, "X has Y do Z" is not good prose, "ends up falling in love" can be replaced by "falls in love", "took turns raping" can be replaced by "raped", and words like "in fact" and "tragically" should be avoided. I haven't necessarily done a particularly good job following these guidelines, partly because I've not seen the film, so I couldn't copyedit radically. I recommend reading Tony1's style guide for further advice. Geometry guy 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more pruning on the plot section, knocking out another 176 bytes. I really don't think it can stand much more trimming at this point. Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the copyedit before coming here, and was very impressed. You did a much better job than I could, because I don't know where to place the emphasis. I've already recommending listing, but now I have no hesitation. Further if you use these writing skills more widely, Wikipedia will benefit even more from your contributions. Nice work. Geometry guy 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to say, thank you! Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List As the person who (by failing the article's original review) prompted this reassessment, I'm more than happy now to recommend listing the article. I'm pleased that EyeSerene and Gguy have added their thoughts, confirming my assessment in some ways and correcting it in others. I'm also glad that the article has further improved as a result. If this is possible, I recommend list and speedy close. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I suggest a small pause to wait for EyeSerene to be active, and give any other reviewers a chance to raise objections, then we can list. Geometry guy 00:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I hadn't realised you wanted more from me. It's academic now, but no problems here with GA! EyeSerene^talk 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for your valuable feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]