Talk:An Unforgettable Summer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:An Unforgettable Summer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JZCL (talk · contribs) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I will review within a week. JZCL 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good article criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Initial comments

• Good inline citations
• No cast list?!?!?
• Couple of minor issues - explained below

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Fine	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Make sure the citations go in ascending order, e.g. instead of [4][2][3][5] make it goes [2][3][4][5]. Also, web article titles should not be in italics and book titles should be in italics - make sure all of this is cleaned up. One disambiguation link in last paragraph - Before the Rain.	On hold

 Not done The title of the film is in italics in references (An Unforgettable Summer and Un été inoubliable). Books should not be in italics. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Good - at least one reference per paragraph. Would maybe be nice to see a few more references on some of the longer paragraphs. Fine.	On hold Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Fine on the face of it - but look here - there are several websites which cannot be connected to. This brings down verifiability. All problems solved	Pass
(c) (original research)	Nothing obvious	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Good coverage of the plot, needs a section on cast; production section is a bit short - it would be best with subsections on inspiration, casting, filming, score and rating (or mix a couple of them together). Preferable subsection on "Critical reception". Budget and box office?	On hold
(b) (focused)	Fine	Pass

 Not done It did not go to box office, and the budget is unknown. Not mixing the sections together, or else it would be even shorter. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Absolutely fine unless there is any negative critical response out there.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No problems.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Nice pictures.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	If there are any legally usable images of the actual film itself, that would be nice. Great	Pass

===Comments===

1. Divide the plot production section into additional subsections; suggested headings above.

   N Not done and not likely to be done I have never seen a plot split into subsections, not even in any FAs. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

   Still  Not done. This would make the sections to be made up of short paragraphs, which looks horrible. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Fix dead URLs from link above.

    Done Changed one.  Not done I will not change the other, because it needs membership to be viewed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

3. Needs section for cast list.

    Not done Not required by GA criteria, and it also looks messy and lists ruin articles (in my opinion). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

4. Add additional details in infobox such as budget and box office.

    Not done Both of these are unknown. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

5. Probably best to have more than one or two references for the longer paragraphs unless the reference really does have all of the information of the paragraph.

    Not done. Which it does. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

These are the 5 most important things to deal with in my opinion; I'm putting this article on hold. Feel free to disagree with anything I've put. JZCL 13:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry antique - I meant that the production section should be split into additional sections, not the plot - it just seemed a bit short. See in the table for the subsections I recommended. As for cast list - if you really don't want to, you don't have to; I just thought that it would be easier for someone to access the details. As for the budget, I couldn't find that either (sorry) but you can find the box office here. As for the last point, you're probably right. The place that I was referring to was the last paragraph of the plot section, which doesn't really need inline citations at all (though great that you've got them).

Might have to resort to some of the more minor points:

• Make sure that the citations always go in ascending order.

•  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disambiguate Before the Rain in the first paragraph of impact and legacy.

•  Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Are there any usable images of the film itself? It's fine if there aren't, but it might be nice.

• Can't find any, and if they were, they would be under copyright. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Would it good to have a subsection on critical reception in the impact and legacy section?

•  I wouldn't say to, and it fits nicely the way it is. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• If you can find it, the music list would be good.

•  Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rating available? (PG etc.)

•  Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I gave you a few bad first comments - hopefully not too much criticism can be found here. JZCL 20:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that this would be OK to pass now. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Well done. JZCL 19:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Result: Pass by JZCL 19:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on An Unforgettable Summer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.revista22.ro/-a-privi-raul-in-fata-1072.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603213622/http://www.revista22.ro:80/html/index.php?art=1072&nr=2004-08-11 to http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?art=1072&nr=2004-08-11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822170751/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/2974/year/1994.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/2974/year/1994.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)