Talk:The French Kissers/GA1

Review Summary

• During my review of the article: I found the structure and general placement of the material to be consistent with that of a good article. However, I found several deficiencies that prevent it from attaining this status (listed below).

Article Issues

• The introductory paragraph should be reformatted and trimmed down: There is a large amount of information in it that could be included later in the article. Some statements (like the one about the director being a "graphic novel writer) are repeated later on in the article. This section should serve as an overview of the topic. An example of a good intro can be found here: Gladiator (2000 film)
  • I think the lead is fine and doesn't need to be trimmed down. The lead section is supposed to serve as both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article so some repetition of information is expected. The commercial response to the film should be noted. - Kollision (talk)
• The plot section contains no references
  • The source of the plot is the film itself. The current consensus is that this is obvious and a citation isn't necessary. (see WP:FILMPLOT) - Kollision (talk)
• Cast list is too long: it should only include the principal characters
• The production section contains too much information about the director's ambitions (the article should be about the movie).
  • I think this information is relevant to the development of the film. - Kollision (talk)
• Large chunks of trivia in the production section need to be cut down.
  • I think all the information present is relevant enough and doesn't need to be cut down. - Kollision (talk)
• The production section should be copy-edited (check syntax)
• Reference 8 leads to a french link. This article is on English Wikipedia and should use English references.
  • Although English references are preferred, non-English sources are acceptable. (see WP:NONENG) - Kollision (talk)
• Reference 9 is a dead link (404 error)
  • I've fixed this. - Kollision (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Reference 12 is inaccessible (only accessible through subscription)
  • There is nothing wrong with subscription-only sources. Verifiability is about "tell us where you got the information from". The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. (see WP:SOURCEACCESS) - Kollision (talk)
• There is little relevant information in the soundtrack section: It contains mostly trivia, and diverges from the movie.
  • Once again, I think all the information present is relevant. - Kollision (talk)
• The reception section is too long and contains a large amount of "peacocking".
  • Box office information should be add to the Reception section. - Kollision (talk)

Conclusion

• As I mentioned above: Much of this article simply needs to be rewritten to provide a more focused scope of its content. Try to remain concise about your topic, and avoid diverting into the trivial material that surrounds the movie. Check out this style guidelines article for a reference.
• Finally, another distinctive issue with this article was the excessive "critical praise" in the Reception section. I would recommend using only two or three review quotes; as the amount of praise in this article (regardless of whether it is from a third party) creates a bias.

The best way to sum up how well received a movie was/is is by using a review aggregator like metacritic or rottentomatoes: They compile a large pool of reviews into a generally accurate perspective of the movie's reception. bwmcmaste (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• I have added some additional comments and noted some points where I disagreed with bwmcmaste's comments. A second opinion if you will. I think this article is close to GA quality (very close), but there are a couple of weak areas.

The area that, for me, needs the most work is the Plot section. It leaves out some more important plot point while going into too much detail in some areas.

• "He and his best friend Camel often fantasise about their female classmates and their mothers" - not really accurate, it is really only Camel who liked Aurora's mum. I'd change it to the more general 'fantasise about women' or something even more general along the lines of 'they think about sex all the time'.
• "Although Hervé and Camel are frequent masturbators, while both alone and together" - unimportant detail
• "Aurore eventually breaks up with Hervé when his friends try to grope her in a game of Dungeons & Dragons" - don't think "grope" is the right word, "in a game of Dungeons & Dragons" - unnecessary detail, I think it was more about the fact that Hervé lied than what Hervé's friend's did - should be rephrased.
• In generally, the plot summary doesn't reflect the nuances of Hervé relationship with Camel, Aurora, his mother and his friends. It doesn't give readers who haven't seen the film a sense of who these characters are and how they interact with each other.

- Kollision (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)