Talk:Pulp Fiction/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be looking at this over the next few days, and then I'll start to make some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Reverts

There has been a minor edit war over the rape scene, but that appears to have been resolved. There is a lot of IP vandalisim, so I will semi-protect. Semi-protection means that unregistered accounts will need to leave a message on the talkpage if they wish to make an edit. SilkTork *^YES! 13:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images/media

All images/media have appropriate fair use rationales. There is a larger than usual use of fair use images, though each use appears to be both appropriate and very useful, with clear explanatory text that brings out the importance of the images. My quibbles are that the captions tend to be long, and that the captions in the stacked images in The mysterious briefcase section are not immediately clear. Is there a way to a)move the bulk of the text to the article, and use more succinct captions and b)to present the captions in The mysterious briefcase so that they read continuously? SilkTork *^YES! 13:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

The prose is of a high quality. Readable, informative and precise. There are occasions, however, when the words chosen could have borne Plain English more in mind - such as "pivotal" instead of important; "evokes" instead of recalls; "allusions" instead of references; "portentous" instead of - I'm not sure, as the line is not quoted, so I don't know if pretentious, awesome, scary, thrilling or foreboding is meant. I like the prose, but then I am well read and well educated; I wonder if it is slightly more difficult for the average reader than it needs to be, and so not meeting the use plain English suggestion of MOS:CLEAR which is part of GA criteria 1 (a). SilkTork *^{Tea time} 14:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at theprevious GA review. That also brought up the question of the prose. I note that, other than structural reorganisation, there has been little significant work done on the article since that review - and little that I can see which pays attention to the prose. However, I am not quite clear what exactly the previous review found wrong with the prose other than it "does not read well enough as an encyclopedic article", so I'm not sure if those issues have been dealt with, or if the previous reviewer's objections are the same as mine. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Marsellus quoted as saying "I'm 'a get medieval on your ass," rather than the script version of "I'm gonna git Medieval on your ass"? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead perhaps doesn't quite organise itself to present the most important aspects of the film in the first paragraph. We get the Oscar nominations of the supporting actors in the first paragraph, but have to wait until the final paragraph to discover that the film was "the inspiration for many later movies", "had a sweeping effect on the field of independent cinema" and is considered "a cultural watershed". We learn little about Tarantino from the lead, as to where the film appears in his work, and the film's importance in projecting Tarantino into the public conscience. Though the body devotes a lot of attention to the plot and the main characters, these aspects of the film are not adequately dealt with in the lead. Production details are not in the lead, and we don't get a mention of Miramax for whom this was an important film, and who promoted it agressively. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 15:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cites

While the article as a whole has a deal of inline cites, there are still places that would benefit from a cite. There are some footnotes - Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-193, Pulp_Fiction#cite_note-170 for example, and some statements in the lead, that while fully cited when explored in detail in the main body, can provoke a reader - "its consequent profitability had a sweeping effect on the field of independent cinema" and "Considered a cultural watershed". WP:LEADCITE suggests citing such statements. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks on the cites will take a little time as most of the sources are print which are not available to UK readers on GoogleBooks. Sources cannot be "accepted in good faith" by GA reviewers. looking at the sources will also clarify the original research and POV aspects of the GA criteria.
I'm not fond of the citation style used in this article, as it makes checking details and sources difficult. Notes are mixed with citations, and it's not clear which texts are used the most. I've ordered the Dawson and the Polan from Amazon as well as two books on Tarantino from my local library. These should all be available within a few days. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of dead external links. Toolserver may be consulted for which links are dead and need updating. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

The Critical_analysis section is fairly detailed for a general encyclopedia entry on the film as a whole. It goes into essay detail. This depth of detail would be more appropriate for a sub-article. Criteria 3 (b) suggests such material be split into sub-articles and a summary left behind per WP:Summary style. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 17:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator

The nominator has been blocked as an account created by a banned user. The GA review is, however, still viable, and I will proceed with the review. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

There is an impressive amount of material in this article, and the critical analysis section in particular makes for a very interesting read. This is a well written and erudite article. The quibbles are to do with the Wiki guidelines that the GA criteria refer to, which are intended to make articles readable and approachable by a wide range of readers. I'll put this article on hold for seven days, and contact significant contributors, nominator and WikiProjects to the issues, which can be summarised as:

Prose - copyedit to make the language more accessible per MOS:CLEAR, paying attention to Wikipedia:Use plain English
Develop and organise the lead per WP:Lead
Cite strong statements in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, and also cite footnotes which contain statements or assertions which are likely to be challenged, as per WP:Cite
Split out The Critical_analysis section into a sub-article per WP:Summary style
Pay attention to the image captions per WP:Captions

Meanwhile I will do spot checks on sources, and do some quick background reading to ensure that the article meets broad coverage, POV and OR. Hopefully this shouldn't take long as I've already ordered books. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed[edit]

No work has been done (other than an edit war over the template) and nobody has left a message here or tried to get in touch with me. Closing this GAN as not listed. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]