Talk:Girl with a Pearl Earring (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shoebox2 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm pleased to introduce myself as the (new?) reviewer of this interesting and well-written article. Will try to have my preliminary review up within a few days. Shoebox2 talk 22:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Even at first glance, it's obvious there is not much wrong with this article. Beautifully written, flawlessly sourced and -- unusually I think for a Wiki film article -- remarkably well-balanced between demonstrating enthusiasm for the subject and providing dispassionate analysis of it. If the intent isn't already to progress it to a FAC, I'd strongly endorse that as the next goal. Shoebox2 talk 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Actually, I wish there was a "perfect, except for one little thing...!" icon to use here, because that's the position I'm in. As noted, the prose is really exemplary save a few minor grammar/word choice quibbles, none of which are remotely close to fatal. My one sticking-point concern is that the production sections particularly appear to suffer from an overuse of quoted material, at least some of which it appears could fairly easily be paraphrased. Before I make a final decision to sign off on this aspect, would like to hear the nominator's take on the subject, possibly with reference to WP:QUOTEFARM?

I definitely understand your concern about WP:QUOTEFARM. I have trimmed down, removed, or reworded some of the quotes. I've left the ones which would be difficult to reword without changing their meaning. Does the production section look better now? Ruby 2010/2013 02:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thank you. I feel like the remaining quoted material makes considerably more sense as quoted material and am OK with it for GA. Would still keep this issue in mind as you progress towards FA, though. Shoebox2 talk 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead is shortish, but neatly and adequately covers all major points mentioned in the article. I'd maybe suggest adding in box-office performance, just on the grounds that most readers will be looking for it off the top. Layout is well within compliance for film/media articles -- it does however seem odd that the process behind choosing the film's director, surely a key moment in pre-production, is relegated to a note? Otherwise, word choice is fine, and tone is as noted pleasingly engaged with the subject yet appropriately dispassionate, very much in the manner of a high-quality film study. Fictional elements are appropriately handled; the plot summary is in fact admirably concise. No lists used, and none needed.

Good point about the director -- I've moved that note back into the main body. Ruby 2010/2013 02:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
I'll be checking this further as the review progresses, but at a glance and given a couple of spot-checks, this looks to be most excellently well-handled.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Given the number of quotes, this is a particular achievement.

C. No original research:
No agenda is apparent here beyond a study of the film.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Very nearly completely satisfying in this respect. The only significant missing piece, I felt, was a further bit of elaboration on those excised subplots.

Yes, those types of details would definitely be useful to include, especially for when it arrives at FAC. I need to conduct a little more research to find out more about the adaptation process (but that hopefully shouldn't derail this review!). Ruby 2010/2013 02:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No -- given the comprehensiveness of the whole it's a comparatively minor point. But I do think it'd be a fruitful avenue to explore further, given the subsequent critiques of the film's storytelling. Shoebox2 talk 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
To be commended for fulfilling this requirement for the overall film while simultaneously introducing so many individual perspectives from its creators.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
As noted, very refreshing for a Wiki film article in this respect.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article as nominated appears to have one primary editor, the nominator. There are a few other editors making substantial contributions but the talkpage reveals no controversies, and civil, constructive collaboration appears to be the norm.
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:
Everything seems to be in order -- the reproduction of the painting itself is actually already a Featured image, which is convenient.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The obvious images are all there, and well-deployed (I particularly like how the Scarlett Johanson image emphasises the 'modernity' aspect that needed to be toned down). Am however not quite convinced by the inclusion of large reproductions of the actual artist's work instead of further representative aspects of the film. At the very least, the captions on the paintings could be more informative.

I've removed one of them, but think the captions on the others are OK at least (I'm not sure if the original painting needs a more descriptive caption). Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 02:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more informative caption there would be worth considering, yes. Your article is (rightfully) taken up with the novel as the inspiration for the film; the caption might be a good place to strengthen the link between the painting and the subsequent expansion of the story behind it. I'd also consider using a selection of other images more directly connected to the film as a way to help impose a narrative thread on your very detailed text. Shoebox2 talk 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This would be essentially a slam-dunk pass, except for the seeming issues with quotes, the one note re: the director and the image selection. Ordinarily this would be when I'd post a detailed list of my proposed fixes, but given that the nominator quite evidently knows far more about what a GA needs than I do at this point, I'm going to save time (not to mention my dignity) and simply ask for a response to the questions I've raised above.Shoebox2 talk 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review, and for your kind words! My goal is for this is indeed FA (eventually). Please let me know if you think of anything else that would help improve the article. Ruby 2010/2013 02:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries -- on reread, I was even more impressed with the overall quality. I've given a few tweaks to the prose just because I'm compulsive that way (and would just point out that the PDF link in ref #52 apparently no longer links to the PDF), but otherwise there's nothing further standing in the way of the GA. I'm happy to pass it, and if you need any help when it becomes a FAC, please do let me know. :) Shoebox2 talk 01:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for reviewing! I will definitely put some more thought into the Girl caption and will look into correcting that PDF link (so annoying when a link breaks, especially when I found it only recently). Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 16:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]