Talk:Short Term 12

Short Term 12 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 24, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Short Term 12 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Short Term 12 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that both of the lead actors in the 2013 film Short Term 12 were cast through Skype?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Short Term 12.

Wikipedia

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 9 July 2013 by reviewer SL93 (talk · contribs).

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Short Term 12/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Corvoe (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be reviewing tonight. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corvoe's review[edit]

Well, it's only 11:44pm where I live, so I'm not a liar. Here we go!

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
In Plot, references to "the film" need to be removed. In Release, "75 venues" should be "75 theaters", and "domestic" is a word to watch; try "North American". In Reception, "Brie Larson's performance in particular has garnered wide critical acclaim" is also a bit muddy, as there isn't a source that backs this up. She was undoubtedly praised, and mentioning that is fine, but I'd remove critical acclaim without a source. Maybe "was singled out for praise by critics" or something similar. "...going on to add" is also redundant, still in the Reception section. Also, not sure this belongs under here but I don't know where else to put it, I think adding Peter Bradshaw's negative review in The Guardian would be good, just to show an opposite side from the heaps of praise it received.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead is excellent. Release and Reception should be merged (neither is big enough), and an expanded box office subsection would be beneficial.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Mostly well-sourced. Two things: what makes this a reliable source? Not only does it appear unreliable on its own, it appears to thank a blog that is entirely unreliable for its information. Surely a better source than this exists. And a quick note, FN 4 needs page numbers. I would recommend using {{rp}} and add the page numbers in-text, but adding them individually is an option as well.

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

B. Focused:
Article flows very well, stays on topic. Accolades definitely need their own article, so I'll probably make that soon, but that's not a deal-breaker.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Nitrogen is more unstable than this article.
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:
Poster has fair use data.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Poster is the only image. Perhaps put an image of Larson in the Reception section, noting that critics singled her out for praise, or an image of Destin Daniel Cretton in the Production section. Or both. I'd say both.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ~~This article is also extremely close to GA, but is in need of a bit more work. You're not far away, 97198! I'll put it on hold so you can make the necessary changes. Corvoe ^{(be heard)}~~ ~~03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Passed! All concerns have been addressed. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: Thanks as always for the thorough review and useful suggestions. I think I've made (pretty much) all the changes you suggested - and thanks for making a start on it yourself! I think the only thing I didn't tackle was the last sentence of the plot section, since I wasn't sure how to rewrite it from an in-universe perspective. Really, although it's a nice bookend for the film itself, it doesn't add much to the reader's understanding of the plot so perhaps it can just be removed... What do you think? And if you're to planning to embark on a separate accolades article, I'd be more than happy to collaborate. :) 97198 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: I'm probably going to make the basis for it this weekend (meaning copying the table, adding the infobox, and pretty much copy-pasting the lead), so I'll be sure to let you know when I do that. I would say that it's removable information, and I'm going to delete it now. I agree that it works in the film, but neither the first nor the last time Sammy runs off really add to the plot, like you said. Quick note: If you have CropTool (which doesn't work on the computer I'm on), would you be willing to crop the photo of Cretton down a bit? The image right now is massive, and I think a good trim would do well for it. Also, I'd suggest shrinking the images of both him and Larson down by just a bit, as both take up a lot of space at the moment. However, that's not going to stop me from passing an excellent article. Great work as always! Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: or rather @Sock: Thanks again! I'll try to fix up those images now. 97198 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Short Term 12. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another archived link to fix is the iheardin.com article by Jaye Sarah Davidson. I'm not great at wiki-editing so I couldn't figure out how to fix it myself, but here's the proper link to an archive!: https://web.archive.org/web/20150407182709/http://iheardin.com:80/2014/02/28/filmmaker-spotlight-behind-the-screen-with-short-term-12-editor-nat-sanders/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subcortical (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Subcortical – I've added the archive link to the article. :) 97198 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]