Talk:Joss Whedon/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: RL0919 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. It's longish, with lots of tables and references, so I expect it will take a few days before I post my notes. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Mostly organizational issues. More in notes below.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Because this is a BLP, I proactively removed some material from non-reliable sources. Other items detailed in notes below.

C. No original research:
Not clear. Some poorly sourced items may be OR, or perhaps alternative sources can be found. More in notes below.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Lots of material about projects, but the themes of his work (for which there is significant popular and academic material) are only lightly touched. More in notes below.

B. Focused:
Too many seemingly trivial details. More in notes below.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Fair-use rationale for Fray cover image doesn't currently mention its use in this article, so that would need to be updated. Other images (and one sound file) are fine.

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

Overall this is a page with a lot of information but poor organization and weighting. The biographical portion is confusingly organized and sometimes overly detailed, while the section on style and themes is unorganized and undersized. Details on both in specific notes below, but as an example: Based on the weight given in the text, Whedon's relationship to feminism is of approximately the same importance as the details of exactly what camera models were used in filming The Avengers.

Specific points to address for GA:

The section division between "Career" and "Other work" doesn't make sense. Is the other work not part of his career? As currently written, readers would think his first project was the Buffy TV series, until they get down to the "Other work" section and discover he had been working for years before that, including writing the Buffy movie that preceded the series!
At a lower level, the organization of sentences seems almost random at times. Here's the description of the production of the Buffy series:

Most of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was shot on locations in and around Los Angeles, California. Whedon worked primarily with composers like Christophe Beck (seasons 2–4), Thomas Wander (seasons 5–6) and Douglas Romayne (season 7). The writing process came together from conversations about the emotional issues facing Buffy Summers, and how she would confront them in terms of her battle against supernatural forces. Whedon, Steven S. DeKnight, Jane Espenson, David Fury, Drew Goddard, Drew Z. Greenberg, David Greenwalt, Rebecca Rand Kirshner, Marti Noxon and Doug Petrie had the most writing credits. Whedon usually directed episodes from his own scripts that held the most cathartic moments in Buffy's story.

So, it was shot, then he worked with composers, then it was written (with lots of writers). That's not my understanding of either the chronology of TV production or the importance of the elements. If there is any intentional organization here, I'm missing it. And how is the list of what other writers had credits important to an article about Whedon?

Another example of seemingly random organization is the subsection for The Cabin in the Woods, which moves from the release date backwards to MGM's financial difficulties, then to its MPAA rating, then to its budget, etc. This happens to some degree in several of these subsections.
Also represented in the Buffy passage above is that the various project subsections often list what composers he worked with, who all the other writers on a show were, and/or exactly what kinds of cameras he used for filming, without giving any indication of why this information is significant for an article about Whedon (as opposed to belonging in articles about these shows/movies).
"Following the completion of a total of 144 episodes, Buffy the Vampire Slayer became lauded worldwide" – wording suggests series was not lauded until it was over.
"'The Gift' won in the Drama Category for Television's Most Memorable Moment at the 60th Primetime Emmy Awards." – This is written in a way that suggests the show won an Emmy award. In fact this was a online viewer poll conducted on an ABC website to drum up interest in the awards show broadcast.
Regarding Much Ado about Nothing: "While influenced by the visual nature of film he decided to permeate a motif of sexuality into the script." – The first and last parts of this sentence don't have an obvious relation to one another.
The section on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. reads like it was written before the show aired.
The "Style, themes and influences" section has no apparent organization and starts with a series of block quotes on random topics.
The article mentions feminism only briefly, despite the reams of material written about Whedon and feminism, some of it critical. This should probably have at least its own subsection under the "Style, themes and influences" section.
LGBT themes aren't mentioned at all, even though the article is tagged for WikiProject LGBT studies on the Talk page.
Why are there two separate tables of television credits?
Sourcing issues:

13 dead links to resolve.
IMDB is controversial as a source and is used four times. I didn't immediately strip it out the way I did some other poorly sourced material (remember, this is a WP:BLP), but alternative sources should be found.
"Whedon usually directed episodes from his own scripts that held the most cathartic moments in Buffy's story." This is sourced to an IMDB episode list that doesn't state any interpretations. This either needs a better source or it should be dropped as original research.
Footnote 219 does not seem to support anything in the sentence it is attached to.
Due to the large number of sources and the other issues with the article, I didn't thoroughly check all sources.

Other thoughts and suggestions (not required for GA):

Seven books are listed in "Further reading", but no books are cited at all in the article. Although this isn't a GA requirement, honestly I suspect this is near the heart of the article's problems. The article seems to be cobbled together from news items and primary sources, without using more comprehensive secondary sources to guide its narrative flow and weighting.
There are some duplicate sources that could be consolidated using named references.
The application of MOS:LQ seems to have been misunderstood. There are a number of cases where whole sentences, or even multiple sentences, are quoted, and the final period is placed outside the quote marks.
Given the length of the article and the number of free images available, it should be possible to add a couple more images to the article.
Alt text for the images would be helpful for some readers.

Putting on hold for a week to let editors work on the issues. --RL0919 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know I'm not done, but what are your thoughts and suggestions to what has been done so far? I re-organized most of the article, merging the Other work section with the Career section as best I could, and consolidated the Style, themes and influences material on feminism into its on section. I added more material to that, and also to the Style, themes and influences section. I have attempted to insert more flowing language to places that had none, and removed information that either was really random or not related directly to Joss Whedon. So yeah, I'm following the criteria, but would feel much better to know what we're on the same page on before the pause on your GA review expires. Thanks. RealGrayLogan 06:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look it does seem to be headed in the right direction in terms of a consistent organization and more appropriate focus. Since you are still working on it, I only gave it a cursory look this time, so let me know when you think it it ready for another full (possibly "final") review. --RL0919 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have resolved the dead links (one of which I discovered was most alive), and replaced them with better ones, including those not dead but just really unreliable. It now reads like a good article, I think. However, the only things I'm not quite sure about are what to do with the Fray image (how to "update", specifically; I have a strong desire to keep it in the article), and are the "two separate tables of television credits" the Television credits and the one under Filmography? Should I just remove the former and if so why? It does take up much space, but it's also a nice overview of Whedon's work. With these issues settled, I do think it's ready for a full review, and whether it's a final one will of course be up to you. RealGrayLogan 07:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the length of the article and the number of credits he has, the best solution may be to create a separate Joss Whedon filmography article that would include what is in both the "Televisions credits" and "Filmography" sections. This article would just have a brief summary -- a sentence or two along the lines of, "Whedon has written, produced or directed numerous movies and television series, blah blah blah." Not sure why I didn't suggest that already.

For the image, I just added a second FUR template related to the use in this article with the information that I have. There is some information missing about exactly where the image came from, who the illustrator is, and how it is important to the article, that would help bolster the FUR. I'm not going to deny GA over a single marginal image, but just be aware that if anyone wanted to mount a challenge against using it here, you would probably need more to provide a good response. --RL0919 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also put a template for it under the Filmography section. I initially tried to put it under the Career section, but it felt weird since it's trapped between many subsection titles so it might be difficult to find. Also it says Main article even though it wouldn't be, so I thought it best to put it in its own section. I hope what's in Joss Whedon filmography is sufficient. Thanks for the help with Fray. RealGrayLogan 20:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Round 2[edit]

Preliminary thoughts on the revised article now, and I will follow up with more details after I have a chance to thoroughly re-read and check the new sources. It's definitely looking better so I don't expect too much more unless I find something unexpected in the source review.

One piece of good news for your GA effort is that the quality of the separate filmography article is a separate issue. That said, we should have some short summary here, not just a link. It could be a single sentence.
The chronology of his career is still a little odd. The two major subjections, "1980s-2000s" and "2000s-2010s", overlap. Assuming we stick with ordering based on when the projects started (which is a reasonable approach), there are quite of few that began in the 2000s, so maybe it should be 1980s-1990s, 2000s, and 2010s?
I tend to think the section on feminism should come before the one on frequent casting, just from a significance perspective. But that's just my thinking, not really driven from GA criteria, so YMMV.

More in a few days. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few minor edits for grammar and such, and I think it's ready to promote. Good work! --RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Couldn't have done it without your notes. RealGrayLogan 10:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)