Talk:Cult film/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the size of this article, I expect my review will not be complete for several days. Freikorp (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Just confirming: "Thus, fandom can keep the mainstream at bay while defining themselves in terms of the 'the Other'". Is 'the Other' supposed to link to the 1972 film? Or was it supposed to link to the philosophical page - Other? If it's supposed to go to the film page I don't understand the reference, though that may be because I haven't seen said movie.
Good catch. I made it even more obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I probably wouldn't have found it confusing if 'the Other' had of linked to anything other than an article about a low budget film haha. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You consistently do not introduce critics and commentators, i.e "Jacob deNobel states that films can be perceived..." Who is Jacob and what makes his opinion notable? Sure I can hover over the reference and see the source is the 'Carroll County Times', but i've previously been told to either credit the author and the source in the prose, i.e 'Writing in the Carroll County Times, Jacob deNobel stated', or give the person a title so the reader can understand why their opinion should be valued, i.e 'Academic / Journalist / Film critic Jacob deNobel states...' To be fair, while this does make for better reading, i'm not actually sure if there is an actual guideline on this. Your thoughts?
In the earliest drafts, it was even more haphazard, and I guess I never really got around to fixing it; I know who they are, so when I proofread the article, it never struck me that I might have to explain it to other people. Later on, it became a part of my writing habit to always include this information, and I agree that it was an oversight not to include it here. I think I got everything, but it's a looong article. As is probably obvious, I extensively quoted several academics. I've attempted to remind readers who they are between the long sections, but I don't think it's necessary to be so specific that I identify Ernest Mathijs as a professor every time I quote him. I could however mention that's a professor at the University of British Columbia, I suppose, but that seems a bit trivial and unimportant. I could also name the academic journals and titles of books more often, but I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary. If it seems relevant to do so, then I can be more explicit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be considered helpful to remind readers, and I don't have a problem with this, but I don't think it's necessary. In my first article to be promoted to featured status I was told to simply introduce each academic / journalist, and from thereon I actually just referred to them by their last names. Freikorp (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's common knowledge that Jar Jar Binks drew criticism on the grounds of racism. Accordingly, I feel the sentence "Jar Jar Binks, for example, is rejected not because of racial stereotyping but because he represents mainstream appeal and marketing" may confuse readers. Consider rewording along the lines of 'Jar Jar Binks' character drew criticism for racial stereotyping, but he only drew criticism from cult fans as he was believed to represent mainstream appeal and marketing', and/or wikilinking a phrase like 'drew criticism for racial stereotyping' to the 'Allegations of racial caricature' sub-section at his article.
It's amusing, but perhaps I unintentionally demonstrated that section by assuming previous knowledge of the controversy. The chapter itself is interesting, and I wish I could have given it more attention. But that's a topic for cult following. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B and genre films: 'B films', which redirects to 'B movie', is wikilinked in the third sentence. 'Genre films', which also redirects to 'B movie' is wikilinked in the fourth sentence. Considering they both link to the same article, the later link should be removed; an explanation of what a genre film is provided anyway.#::: I was aware of that, but I figured it was a "redirect with possibilities". However, you're right; it's probably not worth confusing readers with two links to the same article in short order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Sick film" is provided in inverted commas twice, yet no explanation of the term is given. What is a sick film?~~ #::: I talked around it a few times, but I guess I never really got around to providing a formal definition. It's more explicitly defined now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was easy enough to figure out, but the acronym 'MST3K' is never actually explained. I tried adding the abbreviation after the term, as is common procedure, but then on preview I thought it looked silly when the acronym appears for the second and last time only nine words later. Consider rewording somehow. #::: That was more a degree of laziness than anything else. I simply removed the second acronym and rephrased the sentence so that it's hopefully obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks find no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Good. I improved a few minor things myself as I read the article.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
~~Reference checks finds 3 dead links and 23 redirects: [1]~~
A lot changes in 1.5 years. It was a bit of drudgery, but I think I got everything. The TCM.com URL causes an error in the checklinks script; it's live but reported as a 404. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing format is consistent and acceptable.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Article is not lacking any inline citations.

C. No original research:
Article is free or original research.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
You've clearly sufficiently covered every aspect of this article. More importantly content is very relevant and well-written, and does not go into unnecessary detail; nothing strikes me as needing to be trimmed in particular. While it would be possible to remove a couple hundred words from each section without compromising a significant amount of the article's integrity, and there could be an argument to do this on the grounds of the attention span of readers (I found the need to take a break in between reading the entire article myself) I don't see any violation of the good article criteria here.

B. Focused:
At 9158 words of readable prose, this fits within the size guideline of 10,000 words per WP:SIZE. While each sections obviously contains a considerable amount of information, no section is given a disproportionate size in comparison to the others.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No obvious bias. Nominator discusses whether or not he has unintentionally biased this article towards American film's on Articles talk page, though I agree with the response there that "bias isn't always the product of editorial bias"; America simply does have more popular culture leanings.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No significant edit warring found in past 1000 edits.
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:
No issues with any other these images.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
All images have relevance and appropriate captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I've passed the article now, well done. Freikorp (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]