Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article should be copyedited at the end of GA review.Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The opening sentence meets WP:FILMLEAD requirements. The first paragraph and succeeding paragraphs in the lead section also. The text of the article follows the requirements of relevant manuals of style.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article does provide references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources. The issues are: Multiple citations are presented without authors specified.Y Several dead links.Y
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	I haven't noticed any original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It is necessary to clarify that Okay was their important special word.Y
	3b. 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.	The article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I think that the article is very near GA status. After a couple of non-resolved issues stipulated above are resolved (hopefully within a week) I will ask somebody from GOCE to copy edit the article. After the copy edit is completed I will pass the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Copy editing of the article is completed. I think that two cn tags and a couple of assertions which should be clarified are more of improvement opportunities than obstacles for reaching GA status, so I will promote this article to GA status. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General remarks

What is the reason to present Love Story (1970 film) in See also section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

I thought its story was sort of similar, but I removed it now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SEEALSO says that See also section should contain links of related articles, which is obviously not the case with Love Story (1970 film). Thanks for your action.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't negative reviews mentioned in the lede?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

Actually the film received mostly positive reviews from the critics, which is already mentioned in the LEAD. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. What do you think about adding "mostly" to the lede?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it felt good by adding "mostly". --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources discuss a comparison between a book and a movie. Wouldn't it make sense to add some text about this comparisons (I apologize if I overlooked them in the text of the article)?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

I don't think if that's important, but I'll add some if you say so. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to impose my personal opinion. I might be wrong here. That is why it is necessary to achieve consensus grounded in common sense, sources and wikipedia policies. I don't propose to present judgement if movie or book is better, but to present a brief information if film closely follows the book or not, and to explain if there are some things that exist in the book, but not in the movie, etc... I think that if plenty of sources discuss this aspect I guess its probably important? If it is, then the article should address it to comply to criteria 3a of WP:GACR. Thoughts?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some in the section "Differences between book and film" below the "Accolades" section, I hope its good. Please tell me if it needs expansion or it's enough. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed "a brief information", not a complete new section with a bullet list of differences which is too much and violate WP:FILMDIFF "Creating a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged." A brief information (not bullet list) if film closely follows the book or not (with short explanation) is completely enough. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I briefed it and put in the "Critical response" section. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. English is not my native language, but I have impression that this addition should be copy edited and maybe additionally shortened. It is probably clever to leave copy editing for the end of the review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English is not mine either, I've just learned it in last 4 years (in-fact, mostly from Wikipedia after my teacher). --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that screenshots from the movie were published in some later editions of the book? If yes, what about presenting this information to the readers? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't find any source. If you see it, please do tell me. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen book covers on the later editions of the book? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've not seen them. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources for book covers based on the film (The Fault in Our Stars [Kindle Edition], Penguin Fault in Our Stars (Film Tie-in Edition), Puffin The Fault in Our Stars...) . I don't insist on this. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go then, if you don't insist. I don't think if it's that much important, it should be mentioned in the book. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Okay being their always? It seems that this quote is significant aspect of the film.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Y[reply]

So what should it be? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the book or saw the film, so I don't know what exactly to say about it. I just noticed it is one of the most discussed aspects of the film. Its on the T-shirts, shoes, notebooks,... so it probably is worth mentioning. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the word used as the last word in the film, it was the word used as the last word of Augustus' letter to Hazel, and it was used by Hazel when she responded on hearing Gus' death. So probably that's why it is worth mentioning. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will you add some text about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I put details about "Okay"? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about Plot section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition needs to be reworded. Okay is not just a word "used a few times in the film". They adopted “okay” as the word that serves as an expression of their love. Please read Green's reply to "Q. Why did you choose “okay” and “always”?"(link). Okay. That simple word holds so much meaning for Hazel and Augustus, OK became their word and that becomes the special word between Hazel and Gus in the book and the movie. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antidiskriminator, I did some work on the word, hope it works. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Because of unplanned trip I will probably not be able to continue and complete this review during next 4-5 days. When I return from the trip I will continue with the review. My preliminary opinion is that the article meets GA criteria, except probably the first one (it is necessary to be checked for grammar and general clarity of the prose) which should be easy to resolve with some help of some skilled editor, i.e. from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at the end of reviewing process.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just ping me when you are back. And I'll try to do a little copy-edit, otherwise we'll get help of an expert copy-editor, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Captain Assassin!. I am back from the trip. What do you think about adding a short explanation that "An Imperial Affliction" is actually a fictional book?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Y[reply]

Well, it's not a real book, I'll put information about it, if you say so. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking in consideration the importance of this book for the plot I think that it should be clarified that this book is actually a fictional book. Most of sources I saw do so. I think it is also a request of WP:MOSFICT.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several dead links (refs number 39, 59 and 67).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Y[reply]

Please point out the links again, I lost them. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please click here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text in "Home media" section has zero citations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]
What about brief mention of Esther Earl?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Y[reply]

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many citations without information about the author of the source. Taking in consideration that in many cases the author is known and presented in the source, I think it should be easy to add information about the author to such citations and resolve this issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Y[reply]

Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here. Please explain it a bit. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple citations without authors specified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LAYOUT says that external links "should not appear in the article's body text, nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section." This film's pages at Metacritic, Rotten Tomato, Box Office Mojo and IMDb websites are already used as sources for the text of this article so they should not be duplicated in the External links section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Y[reply]

I think external links should be presented, I've seen same links in references and external links at several pages. I'll add them back if you say so. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insist on this. The guideline is not strict in this case. It says "normally", so if you want to return them, go ahead and do it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now Antidiskriminator, should I hire someone to copy-edit or you will? Because I want it to be done in two-three days, and I think article just need a quick copy-edit of grammar and spelling. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I saw that you had already requested for the cop-edit, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to leave a post, when I saw Captain Assassin! had just said it, sorry guys but in places this article is incomprehensibly phrased and grammatically pretty clunky. Also is it really worth mentioning people who DIDN'T get a part? Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just do a quick copy-edit, and please do not remove any content, so it stays in GAN criteria, thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C, is that request addressed to me? Thoughts below.Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) … … … ps re above: I understand that IMDb should NOT be used as a source (but can be an external link). Pincrete (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Boone described the casting: "Over 250 girls read for the part, but it wasn't until Shailene stepped in front of the camera that I truly saw Hazel for the first time", this is in both the Cast & Casting sections, some other items in the Cast section, don't seem to be about the character they play.

Antidiskriminator, I think you should take a look back here. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Nobody from GOCE responded to my request yet? Do you think that Pincrete peformed complete copy edit of this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Antidiskriminator, no he didn't! he tidied 'casting' and any obvious errors he saw, but left overall control to you two, someone ELSE did do SOME copy editing! Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry Pincrete. You are right. It was Yngvadottir who did some copy editing. If I am not wrong, the article still needs complete copy editing before it is promoted to GA. I think that soon its turn will come at WP:GOCE. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Antidiskriminator I have just had a quick look, there is STILL some bad grammar and wrong or unclear phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Pincrete. Please let me know when you think that copy editing is completely performed. Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, will do, I'm mainly tidying phrasing/grammar, modifying terms that are TOO informally 'filmy' (promo/red carpet etc.). There are a few questions below that need the attention of someone who KNOWS the film/book, I've checked with sources for other parts, but cannot for these. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC) … ps tidying is nearly complete, but I need answers to some questions below. Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]