Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 07:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Images
[edit]
ResolvedInfobox
[edit] ResolvedNaming conventions
[edit]- Kim Jong-il
- On Wikipedia, the convention is to use the full name in the first instance, followed by a surname in subsequent instances. Some editors repeat this convention for each section. So for each section, use the full name first, followed by "Kim" for second usage. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have done so. I've used "Kim Jong-il" whenever Kim Il-sung is also discussed to avoid confusion. Changes: diff – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, the convention is to use the full name in the first instance, followed by a surname in subsequent instances. Some editors repeat this convention for each section. So for each section, use the full name first, followed by "Kim" for second usage. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]
Doing...
- Actual impact on North Korean films themselves, however, is disputed
- @Finnusertop: I've read this many times and I find it too informal. Could you clean it up a bit? There are many different ways you could do it, but something like this might work as a good starting point: "The influence of the book on North Korean films is disputed." This sentence could then be briefly expanded to summarize the dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I've replaced it with the following: "Its actual impact on North Korean filmmaking, however, is disputed. Films from before and after the publication of the treatise are very similar in style and many contemporary films breach various rules laid out in On the Art of the Cinema." Is this okay? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: it is certainly an improvement, but try to minimize the use of words like actual, however, very, and many, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and other guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I've separated these two phrases to form a new paragraph and got rid of the problematic words. It now eliminates a problematic POV that suggested that because the book had a political role it should have had an effect on filmmaking (no sources suggest this). It now reads: "The impact of On the Art of the Cinema on North Korean filmmaking is disputed. Films from before and after the publication of the treatise are similar in style and many contemporary films breach various rules laid out in the treatise." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: it is certainly an improvement, but try to minimize the use of words like actual, however, very, and many, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and other guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I've replaced it with the following: "Its actual impact on North Korean filmmaking, however, is disputed. Films from before and after the publication of the treatise are very similar in style and many contemporary films breach various rules laid out in On the Art of the Cinema." Is this okay? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: I've read this many times and I find it too informal. Could you clean it up a bit? There are many different ways you could do it, but something like this might work as a good starting point: "The influence of the book on North Korean films is disputed." This sentence could then be briefly expanded to summarize the dispute. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Question: why doesn't the lead mention the two main theories in the book–the theory of literature as humanics and the seed theory? Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- It should; I've added it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nice work, but please very briefly tell the reader what they are. Remember, the lead should be able to standalone as a summary. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have done so now. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nice work, but please very briefly tell the reader what they are. Remember, the lead should be able to standalone as a summary. Viriditas (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- It should; I've added it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Background
[edit] Doing...
- After his graduation in 1964, Kim Jong-il engaged in...
- @Finnusertop: graduation from what and where? I visited the parent article to find out and it looks like there's a bit of a mystery here. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- The source you are using says Kim Il-sung University. Can you add that? Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- The source you are using says Kim Il-sung University. Can you add that? Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: graduation from what and where? I visited the parent article to find out and it looks like there's a bit of a mystery here. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Finnusertop: I see an issue with Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing of the David-West 2009 source in this section. Please review. Is the David-West source copyrighted? Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: you are right; some of it is very closely paraphrased (since the source is copyrighted, this is unacceptable). I believe I have fixed it now, but let me know if you think something that should be refined: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for making an effort. Looking at the diffs, there is now an unclear anachronism (creative industry instead of government) and inadvertent downplaying and omission (prohibition instead of burning of books). You might want to leave it but come back to it, perhaps with a second source. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: You're right, "creative industry" isn't the same thing as "state arts bureaucracy". I tried to find an equivalent to avoid close paraphrasing but the meaning was altered. I have returned "state arts bureaucracy". I have also returned the destruction of the conference archive, as it seems relevant enough. I tried to see if some other sources have something more to say about this, but I couldn't find anything. If you think this section needs more work, I'll take another look more sources. Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a simple three-step checklist to help you fix the close paraphrasing and avoid it in the future: 1) do exceptions apply, such as proper nouns or free content? If yes, leave it, if no, then 2) look to see if the material is a good candidate for quoting and attributing. If yes, add the quotes and attribute the source, if no, then 3) rewrite the material using your own phrasing and wording that best summarizes the material. Now, see if you can apply this to the above problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, Viriditas. In this case, I've reproduced proper names as they appear ("Kim Jong-il", "Aesthetic Review Meeting" and other party organizations, names of films). There is no free content involved as the source (David-West 2009) and all others are copyrighted. As for quoting, I don't feel that it's necessary here; the source offers no particularly poignant wording and skillful paraphrasing leads to a more encyclopedic outcome here. I've further changed the wording to avoid close paraphrasing. Are we in agreement that the level of paraphrasing is now acceptable? Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Phrasing like "In total, Kim had obtained around a decade of experience in the state arts bureaucracy by this time" is far too close to the source material and requires paraphrasing. "State arts bureaucracy" could easily be changed to government arts council or something else that fits into the NK political structure. "Decade of experience" also needs to be paraphrased. Again, please review the current content because I don't want to raise this issue again. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience, Viriditas. I have rephrased the problematic parts to read: "Kim had worked in the government arts administration for almost ten years by this time." I also altered wordings in other sections to avoid close paraphrasing. Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I need more patience, who doesn't? Good work. Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your patience, Viriditas. I have rephrased the problematic parts to read: "Kim had worked in the government arts administration for almost ten years by this time." I also altered wordings in other sections to avoid close paraphrasing. Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Phrasing like "In total, Kim had obtained around a decade of experience in the state arts bureaucracy by this time" is far too close to the source material and requires paraphrasing. "State arts bureaucracy" could easily be changed to government arts council or something else that fits into the NK political structure. "Decade of experience" also needs to be paraphrased. Again, please review the current content because I don't want to raise this issue again. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, Viriditas. In this case, I've reproduced proper names as they appear ("Kim Jong-il", "Aesthetic Review Meeting" and other party organizations, names of films). There is no free content involved as the source (David-West 2009) and all others are copyrighted. As for quoting, I don't feel that it's necessary here; the source offers no particularly poignant wording and skillful paraphrasing leads to a more encyclopedic outcome here. I've further changed the wording to avoid close paraphrasing. Are we in agreement that the level of paraphrasing is now acceptable? Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a simple three-step checklist to help you fix the close paraphrasing and avoid it in the future: 1) do exceptions apply, such as proper nouns or free content? If yes, leave it, if no, then 2) look to see if the material is a good candidate for quoting and attributing. If yes, add the quotes and attribute the source, if no, then 3) rewrite the material using your own phrasing and wording that best summarizes the material. Now, see if you can apply this to the above problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: You're right, "creative industry" isn't the same thing as "state arts bureaucracy". I tried to find an equivalent to avoid close paraphrasing but the meaning was altered. I have returned "state arts bureaucracy". I have also returned the destruction of the conference archive, as it seems relevant enough. I tried to see if some other sources have something more to say about this, but I couldn't find anything. If you think this section needs more work, I'll take another look more sources. Changes: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for making an effort. Looking at the diffs, there is now an unclear anachronism (creative industry instead of government) and inadvertent downplaying and omission (prohibition instead of burning of books). You might want to leave it but come back to it, perhaps with a second source. Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: you are right; some of it is very closely paraphrased (since the source is copyrighted, this is unacceptable). I believe I have fixed it now, but let me know if you think something that should be refined: diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Although Kim is known to have been privately interested in Hollywood films,[7] he forbade discussion on 'foreign' film concepts at the Aesthetic Review Meeting
- Per WP:QUOTEMARKS, double quotation marks should be used for "foreign". It isn't exactly clear if you are quoting a POV or not. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Foreign" appears in double quotation marks in the source. I am unsure as to what the source is trying to do here: quote Kim (the source quotes Kim immediately after the sentence) or express its own POV. In either case, I'm quoting the opinion of either Kim or David-West.
- Per WP:QUOTEMARKS, double quotation marks should be used for "foreign". It isn't exactly clear if you are quoting a POV or not. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- In any case, MOS doesn't recommend quoting a single word with double quotation marks: MOS:QUOTE#Point of view: "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can often seem to imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words, like "supposedly" or "so called", might be inferred." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it seems like a case of paraphrasing is needed instead of quoting. In other words, why quote here at all? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about: Kim forbade discussion on foreign film concepts? Paraphrasing instead of quoting, and eliminating the quotation marks around "foreign" altogether. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please try it and see if it works. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please try it and see if it works. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about: Kim forbade discussion on foreign film concepts? Paraphrasing instead of quoting, and eliminating the quotation marks around "foreign" altogether. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, but it seems like a case of paraphrasing is needed instead of quoting. In other words, why quote here at all? Viriditas (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing is a concern
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused (see summary style):
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
New reviewer needed
[edit]- @Finnusertop: due to personal health problems, I am unable to finish this review. Please request a new reviewer or make a comment on the GAN talk page. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Viriditas: I've made the template steps required by the FAQ at WT:GAN and posted a message at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New reviewer needed. I thank you for the wonderful contribution you have made so far to this article and the review. I wish you all the best. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)