Jump to content

Talk:Wild Tales (film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I will begin the review shortly. Daß Wölf 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First round

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Hello! I am picking up the nominators role here at the request of the reviewer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I am on my first read through, and I made two minor changes to the lead, but the last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead - The director believed its theme of "man versus a system that's designed against him" would have universal appeal because of the status of power and wealth concentration. - needs clarifying, and I am unsure what the original intent was. Why would power having status have universal appeal? Does this sentence mean it is the struggle to obtain status, power and wealth in modern society that cages us in? I think that's probably it, but right now I have no source support. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing this sentence intends to summarise the second-to-last paragraph in the Themes section. I agree that this should be clearer. There are a lot of themes listed in that para, though. I don't know which would be the best choice for the summary. Daß Wölf 12:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Placing the article on hold for now. Daß Wölf 02:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days. Pinging the nominator @Gabriel Yuji:. Daß Wölf 07:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daß I have done a few minor edits, but am reluctant to spend more time without knowing for sure that you would like me to continue. If you do, ping me and I will return tomorrow. I am brushing up on my español. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04
23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this pinged you correctly so I am trying again Daß Wölf Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777: Thanks for taking up the review! I'm not sure if this amount of work is something reviewers are expected to do on their own, so I hope I'm not wasting your time in that regard, but your edits are definitely very much appreciated :D (BTW it looks like both of your pings went out OK.) Daß Wölf 21:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW it looks like both of your pings went out OK.) Daß Wölf Ha ha! So I pinged you twice! I'm sorry! This review looks like all the reviews I've participated in - except one that was a quick fail and filled with acrimony - thank goodness this isn't that! Your comments are reasonable and accurate in my view. I am willing to do the work. I am waiting on two other GAN's right now just twiddling my thumbs (what is that anyway?!) so I have the time. It's an interesting article - now I want to see the film! It seems plenty noteworthy and worth the trouble. It's entirely up to you of course as the reviewer but I am certainly willing to bring this one in with you. I'll start back later tonight. If you have more comments, just post them and I will get to them one at a time. What about #6 above? What is your decision? I will do whatever you decide. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did something (#6). These few are done now. So far, every reference I have checked has been good too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, Daß Wölf I haven't heard back. You haven't dropped being the reviewer have you? I just stepped in as the "nominee" to do the work you saw and asked for. I can't do both! I need you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been absolutely swamped with work this week. I'll be getting to the comments in the next few hours. Again, thanks for doing this! Daß Wölf 12:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]
  1. Per WP:V, all quotes should be immediately followed by citations. This is just cosmetic at this point I think, I added a citation in one sentence that was ambiguous (containing a quote in the middle and multiple citations at the end). Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I did spot checks on some English-language refs and so far it checks out, assuming AGF on the rest. Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regarding OR, all the sentences in the body have citations and spot checks show the claims are cited, so the only possibility is in the lead. I see you've brought that up already above and I don't see anything to add here. The rest of the prose looks good to me, I don't think it requires further copyediting. Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: I think that's all from me at this point :) Again, sorry for not getting in touch sooner, I was completely swamped IRL. Daß Wölf 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • DaßWölf. Sorry it took so long to get back, one of my GA's came back and needed attention. I have reworded the two unattributed quotes so that they are parphrases instead because I had no way to locate the quotes, and because you are 100% correct: all quotes must be attributed. They are now gone as quotes but restated as - hopefully - relatively equivalent statements.


Hey. I was very busy in real life, so thank you both Daß Wölf and Jenhawk777. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Glad I could help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]