Talk:From the Sky Down

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
 
WikiProject U2 (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U2, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U2 and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA nomination?[edit]

I think this article look about ready for a GA nomination, but since I didn't contribute much to it, I'd rather get input from other editors or have some main contributors do the nomiation. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I was the person who contributed the most to the article and although I've kept my eye on it from time to time, I haven't done anything to expand the article beyond its current state since the film was released. Still, I think it's reasonably well written and could probably pass GA easily. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:From the Sky Down/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dream out loud. I have done some copy edits to start, and have some additional suggestions for prose amendments below that I didn't want to do myself as I want you to review them and make sure I'm not distorting the meaning. The prose is overall very good and does not need much more tweeking. Here's the items that need your input:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    • One sequence from the film recounts the improvization of the album's emblematic song "One" through the replaying of old recording tapes. Suggest "Development of the album's emblematic song "One" is recounted through the replaying of old recording tapes."Green tickY
    • The band were... This should be "the band was", as the article otherwise uses American spelling and date conventions (two occurrences).Green tickY
    • The band were filmed during a return visit to Hansa Studios in Berlin where the album was partly recorded would read better as "where parts of the album were recorded"Green tickY
    • the film did not provide enough depth in covering the album How about "the film did not provide adequate in-depth coverage of the album"Green tickY
    • The band did not demand any changes to the film but did request that it be shortened for length, which Guggenheim agreed to do. I think this sentence should be simplified and shortened. How about something like "The only request the band made was that the film should be shortened in length, and Guggenheim agreed"Green tickY
    • The article is a bit over-reliant on quotations in my opinion, especially the Production section. Please consider paraphrasing a few of these quotes to help give the prose better flow.
    • Yes check.svg Done All the points raised except the paraphrasing work. I am not the nominator; just passed by and decided to contribute. Ethically (Yours) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    • In lieu of a Plot section, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film calls for a Synopsis section for documentaries. This is currently missing. Please add to the lead summarizing the new material once you've got it added.
    • There's some overlinking in the References section. Please link the sources only for the first occurrence.
    • Consider adding links to Rotten Tomatoes or other aggregate sites in the external links.
  2. Sourcing:
    A. Provides references, with in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    • All links are functional; I corrected a couple of minor technical errors in the citation formatting. Sources are high-quality journals and books.
    B. Contains no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing:
    • Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing.
    C. No original research:
    • Thematically, it was a more introspective and personal record; it was darker, yet at times more flippant than the band's previous work. Please confirm this analysis comes from the cited source (Graham 2004) and is not the analysis of the Wikipedia editors.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    • Needs synopsis section
    B. Remains focused:
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

The article is in very nice shape and needs only a few amendments to pass to GA-class. On hold for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Failing the nomination as the main concern, the lack of a synopsis section, has not been addressed. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)