Talk:Machinima/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability review

Upon inspection of recent article edit history see some minor IP edit stuff, just something to keep an eye on going forward. No issues on inspection of talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review

7 total images used in article.

Fair use

1. File:RVB group shot.jpg
2. File:Diary of a Camper.jpg
3. File:South Park machinima.jpg

Please standardize the rationale on the image pages for these three using {{Non-free use rationale}}. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Doing.... I'd actually prefer to use {{non-free image data}} and {{non-free image rationale}} separately, because all three are used on multiple pages. — TKD::{talk} 06:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. — TKD::{talk} 07:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Great thank you, will do more of the review soon. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Free use

1. File:Hugh Hancock.jpg
2. File:ILL Clan presents Tra5hTa1k at Stanford.jpg
3. File:Second Life shadows.ogv
4. File:Matt Kelland and Keith Halper at the 2008 Machinima Film Festival.jpg

These four are all from Wikimedia Commons, sourced at flickr, and they check out okay. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 25, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Could do with look from some fresh eyes and copyediting with respect to flow, usage of commas, sentence structure, etc. I would recommend posting queries for copyeditors at the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, and at WP:GOCE.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Generally I like to have cites at ends of sentences instead of ends of paragraphs for potential for confusion in the future.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects of topic - the subsection titles might be a tad bit long. Would it be possible to create new articles/stubs for the redlinks?

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone, matter of fact wording, no issues here.

5. Article stability? See above.

6. Images?: See above.

Please respond below.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your specific points:

• 1. I will ask another WikiProject editor to try to give a comb-through. His writing style is different (i.e., less stilted :)) from mine.
• 2. I don't mind citing every sentence, but after the copyedit.
• 3. I've shortened some of the section titles, although I'm not sure that "relation to other filmmaking methods" can be shortened without losing precision or clarity. Regarding the redlinks, I have removed the [[1999 in machinima|1999 film]] cases; they could considered slight Easter eggs, anyway. I will stub out something for the three redlinked films. I have sources for them.

Thanks for your review of this longish article. — TKD::{talk} 00:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses, feel free to keep me posted here. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I made stubs for the three red links. (Writing a three to five sentences is so much easier than writing 3,000 to 5,000 words!) Still have the copyediting outstanding. I plan to make a pass over the article myself soon (in addition to hopefully getting outside help), assuming that I can get my brain to shift gears into copyediting mode successfully. — TKD::{talk} 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done with mercilessly copyediting, I think. Drat (talk · contribs) took a look afterwards, but made minimal changes. I know that self-copyediting isn't always completely effective, but I saw clear areas for improvement after stepping back and examining things in a different light, so to speak. Significant changes have been mode to almost every paragraph (and a few shorter ones combined). Please point out any remaining instances of awkwardness, if you see any. I'll get to per-sentence citing later. — TKD::{talk} 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if a previously-uninvolved-editor could either A) copyedit the article in a pass or two themselves, and/or B) at least read through it and comment on it here on this page. Either way would appreciate it if that editor(s) could comment here afterwards. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've requested help from the GOCE. — TKD::{talk} 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, could also try posting to talk pages of related WikiProjects for help. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

←Posted on talk of WP Films, VG, and Machinima (though the activity in that last project has basically dwindled to Drat and me). — TKD::{talk} 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vantine84 (talk · contribs) has copyedited the article; as requested, I've asked that user to comment here. — TKD::{talk} 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note that I've gone through and added per-sentence citations, except for the lead. — TKD::{talk} 05:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the entire article and copyedited it. A few of the sentences were awkward; I rearranged them to improve the flow of the text. I also moved a few inline citations that were in the middle of sentences. I wikilinked and unwikilinked a few terms as necessary, and fleshed out descriptions of gaming terms to make it more accessible to the general public. There were also a few technical/cosmetic modifications, like punctuation. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

@Vantine84 (talk · contribs) - Thanks for the notes about the copyedits - what is your take on the article itself as it stands in its current state? Cirt (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's deserving of good article status. It's well-sourced and complies with the MoS. It gives a reader, even one not familiar with gaming or film, a lot of reliable information about its topic. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most probably agreed - just going to give it another read-through... Cirt (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Pass

Really great work. Especially the meticulous sourcing. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)