Talk:Stanley Donen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--Singin in the Rain is one of my two or three all-time favorites. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Sorry that this took me longer to begin than planned. At first pass, this looks like another strong film article, and does a particularly good job of explaining Donen's long-term significance in the evolution of film. Thanks buckets for your work on this important figure.

Thanks so much for doing this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some copyedits throughout, so please doublecheck me and revert anything you disagree with. Other than those, here's the points I see that might be addressed:

• "the last surviving notable film director of Hollywood's Golden Age" -- this needs citation as a bit of a value judgement

• Yea, there is no source. It belongs in the article because it is true, but it may have to go.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Never gratuitous or amateurish, this scene also establishes character development and sets up the plot of the film while creating a fun, fast paced, kinetic energy that influenced all musicals that came after it" -- this evaluation should be attributed to a critic in-text ("According to John Wakeman,")

• That's a tough one because Wakeman is the editor of the entire book while authors of individual articles are rarely attributed to an author. Is there a way to do that?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry. I didn't mean it had to be Wakeman specifically. Do you still have this book on hand to say which article this is coming from? I think a phrase like "Film critic X describes the scene as never gratuitous or amateurish, while also establishing..." would be helpful here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• "that he had been a member of the Communist party" -- is it possible to provide a more specific link here? (e.g., Communist Party USA?)

•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The most famous sequence is the Give a Girl a Break dance between Reynolds and Fosse" -- is the title here meant to refer to an individual number? If so, as a song, it should be in quotation marks here rather than italics.

•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• "film critic Jean-Luc Godard"-- would it be better to call him "director" here? He's rather more famous for that, but I see the point that he's in his role as a critic here.

•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Their achievements reached a level of perfection on Singin' in the Rain" -- this judgement should be clearly sourced; we shouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that this is a perfect film (though I personally agree that it is!).

•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• "while most film directors are said to prefer Minnelli's work." -- this general statement probably needs a citation. (Who says this, specifically?)

• Its a continuation of Silverman's opinions and is included in the next quote. Do you think this citation should be repeated?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it's worth adding the citation also to the end of that sentence for clarity, only because the sentence already has one citation in it. I'll go ahead and do this, but revert me if you strongly disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• "However it is also true " -- This appears to be a bit of WP:SYNTH--using one source to rebut another without either author having directly connected these. I suggest that this sentence be cut.

•  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• " It starred Zak Edwards as Donen, Charles Osburne as Kelly and Summer Broyhill as Coyne." -- the opening cast for this musical may be a little more information than is needed here, especially considering that these aren't big names. Up to you, though.

•  Done, you're probably right.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• "His first wife was dancer, choreographer and actress Jeanne Coyne" -- is the correct spelling Jean or Jeanne? This should be made consistent. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done, aside from the quotes.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Thanks for your fast responses. All the above looks good; I've noted the few remaining issues below.

• Just a heads up that I won't have Internet access for the next 3-7 days. I apologize for the delay this will cause in the review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for doing this. I'm fixing the web links right now and I will either get a source or rephrase the gratuitous quote. I'm also going to go over the prose at lest once and make some changes as needed. The article got a Copy Edit a little while ago and to be honest I didn't love all of the choices that the editor made in terms of re-structuring the article, so I may change certain parts back. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  Sounds good! Let me know when you're happy with it. There's no rush--I know you're doing that Greed FAC right now, too, so feel free to make that the priority. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I think the article meets the minimum for this criterion, but I wanted to point out the problem that many of the website links have incorrect titles--for example, "Boston.com article on Donen" instead of the article's actual title. This would make these articles almost impossible to find if the url should move. It's not needed for me to pass this for GA, but I'd strongly suggest that the titles of these articles, and their date of publication, be added to the citations.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The "last living Golden Age director" needs citation or to be cut.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensive without ever being over-detailed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	As an opinion, the "never gratuitous" quotation needs in-text attribution for POV reasons.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass