Wikipedia:Peer review/Korkoro/archive2

Korkoro[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A peer review might help the page survive a GAN.

Thanks, _morelM W^illiam 10:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi William and other reviewers. I will begin posting large issues with the article, before going into smaller and prose related issues. Will, a main issue I notice are the references. Many of poorly or not properly formatted. Many are missing either works or publisher fields, and all are missing accessdates. Additionally, many statements, sentences and thoughts are not sourced (a source should really be present after every sentence). That, and the awkward paragraphing make reading a bit difficult. Lastly, I think it would be beneficial to expand the "filming" section as it is currently very small. So far those are the large issues, once you have addressed those, I'll be happy to come back for round 2. Good luck! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted the references and linked the sources for all the sentences. I also expanded the filming section. Thank you Nathan._morelM W^illiam 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truthkeeper88 per request

First, let me congratulate you with the enormous progress you've made since I first saw this article. I have a few general comments to make, will watch the page and Nathan's comments, and then swing back again:

Remove the hyperlinks to external websites; if you can't wikilink them, then simply mention them in text, in italics.
Movie titles should be in italics throughout the article.
Anything in quotes should use double quotation marks - this is done a bit inconsistently throughout, some in single quote marks, some in double. Make them consistent.
The reviews use the term gypsy, but in the lead and the plot the term Romani is used more often. This will need to be made consistent, or somehow a phrase, or explanation, added that the Romani are known as gypsies. I think it's there in the lead, but needs a little more clarification.
The acolades section should be renamed to be "Awards".
I would prefer to see the "Background section" about the Holocaust and the Romani people come a little earlier, perhaps even right after the plot summary. Not many people are aware that the Romani were sent to concentrations camps, were made to wear badges, etc., so I think for context this information should be presented earlier.
The page will need a copyedit for prose. When you've made changes suggested here, either submit for a copyedit at the GOCE (Guild of Copyeditors) or give me a ping - if I have time, I'll swing through it.
Everything taken from a source has to be paraphrased correctly, otherwise it might be considered copyvio or plagiarism. I haven't yet, but will spot-check. This is standard practice in a PR before a page goes to review (at least in my PRs).
I haven't looked at the sourcing yet, will return with comments.
I'm concerned about the number of FUR images - those probably won't survice a review, just so you know.

That's all for now, will post more later as I've been through it again. Very impressed with the progress, and with some work I think you have a good chance at GAN. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I made a series of edits after reading your comments, and now there are

No hyperlinks to external websites in the main article section
No unitalicised occurrence of the movie title in the main article section
No inconsistency in the usage of the terms Romani and Gypsy. The whole article now uses Romani to refer to them in all places.

Also, I shifted the production section to above the themes section. The background subsection is now right below the plot summary. I think I paraphrased it well, but third opinion would be better. I renamed the accolades section to awards. I also addressed the FURs in their purpose of use section. The three FUR images in the main text body are from the scenes that are referred to in many places in the article in the critical commentary section. Also, the scene with the Romanies as blacksmiths is a unique thing for the movie, as mentioned in the reviews. Thanks a lot for your comments. Take your time for the second round. _morelM W^illiam 18:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy on another page. I just had a quick look because this popped up on my watchlist, and I noticed a lot of overciting. If a source is used for more than one sentence in a row, only add the citation at the end of the string of sentences it cites. When the copyedit is done, I'll have a swing through again. Still watching. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had done the same thing earlier. But I took Nathan's comments as I should cite the source for every sentence and hence the current overcited state. _morelM W^illiam 02:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed that. No, it's only necessary if each statement is from a different source, which sometimes is the case. Don't worry about it, I think I'll sweep through when the copyedit is finished and I can fix for you. I can't comment on content at the moment because some of it seems to be disappearing, so I'll wait. Please feel free to ping me if I forget. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copy editor is almost done with it, as he wrote in his talk page. Thanks a lot for offering to fix the overcitations. _morelM W^illiam 05:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when it's done and I'll go through with a final set of comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing review, post copy-editing

→Expanded the lead. Did I mess it up?

~~"a Romani who managed to escape from the Nazis with help from some kind French people" is a little awkward. Maybe something like "managed to escape with help from French villagers"?~~

→Changed it to "with help from some compassionate French villagers."

Tweaked it a little. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Plot - " The mayor, Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), who also practises as a veterinarian, " is a little awkward. Maybe try " Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), the mayor who is also a veterinarian ..."~~

→Changed it to "Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), the village mayor who is also a veterinarian".

Okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence - "The Nazi's target not only ..." > a couple of problems here. First it shouldn't be a single sentence paragraph. Second, the part about the concentrations camps appearing doesn't really make sense. I think this sentence can be its own paragraph, but needs expansion and clarification, and then should be split into multiple sentences.

→Not a single sentence anymore. Added more clarification with regard to the concentration camps.

Tweaked it a little. Better now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Background - This section isn't really working well at the moment. Somehow it has to be tied to the film - do you know whether the director was Romani? What inspired him to make this film? Or if he doesn't have a tie to it, then add something to the section along the lines of the film is about a forgotten episode during WWII when the Romani were, .... and fill in from there. Might require a bit of research. Another thing to do, would be to leave it as is, and combine the "Background" with the "Development" section so you have one section called "Background and development". (Btw - found some of the answers to my questions in the development section).

→I reworded the section. How about this version?

Yes, much better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~In this part: "went to Montreuil to interview the Romanies there.[10] However, the people there refused to talk " > try to prune out the repetition of "there", which is also in the next sentence too~~

→Pruned out the second 'there'. How does it sound now?

Okay Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence: "Following former French President Jacques Chirac's efforts to honour the Justes,[11] Gatlif came across Yvette Lundy,[9] a former schoolteacher in Gionges, La Marne, who had been deported for forging documents for the Romanies,[12] and also a small anecdote by Jacques Sigot,[9] a historian who has documented the Porajmos,[13] about a Romani family who were saved from being sent to the camp at Montreuil-Bellay by a French lawyer who sold them his home for a franc." > is too long and hard to read. Needs to be split somehow.

→Split.

Tweaked a little. Better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. Thanks.

*Filming - do we know where the barbed wire came from? Was it taken from a concentratiion camp?

→Added info.

Interesting. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Track listing - I'm don't know about the rules for collapsible boxes, but for some reason think they might not be allowed. You might want to look into this.~~

? Can the Tracklisting be moved to an external section? Even the way it looks as a collapsible list is awful. Or can it be removed altogether?

If it were me, I'd remove. Is it necessary? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
→Removed the tracklisting section.

~~Themes and analysis- thinking about what to do with the thin first section here. Also don't forget to use italics for the names of all films, magazines and newspapers.~~

→It looks like the italics are in place.
? For the themes common section, I added a summary of the whole section. Would that do?

Yes, it's better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think these paragraphs would work better if they were set up with topic sentences. In other words, something like, "Reviewers have compared the film to Stephen Spielberg's Shindler's List " and maybe mention something about self-sacrifice. Topic sentences that summarize everything in the paragraph and help the reader don't need to have a citation.

→Added topic sentences. Not sure if they turned out well. Your opinion?

Better Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Critical response - a little choppy. I wonder if there's a way to combine these reviews? Thinking about what to do here, but I wouldn't have a separate para for each review.~~

→Reworded the whole section. Is it still choppy?

~~Seems to be, but need another read through.~~
This is a bit heavy going now, but much better. In my view there's really no good way of doing these, but since you have so many, you could possible prioritize and may dump one or two. Another option would be to lump them together, something like this: "Some agree the film was boring such as those from [blank], [blank], and [blank]. For now, I think it's fine.

Isn't the present version already lumped, with one paragraph having comments on Gatlif's direction, another on the style, the next one on the historical aspects and the next on the cinematography? I think it is not very clear in its present state.

Sources and references - haven't checked these yet. Will return.

The foreign language sources should be identified as such

Do this [1]; look at how this ref renders now. All the foreign lang refs need this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you. What should I do with the foreign language sources?

I'll have a look at the templates, but there should be field to indicate the language of the source. I've noticed some of the sources have place of publication, such as New York, or Phoenix, but in the least that's missing from the foreign language sources, or at least the ones I looked at.

Let me fill in the language part for the sources then.

→Filled in the language part for all the foreign language sources.

~~MoS - go through the text and check that there isn't any WP:Overlinking - it seems to me that some things are linked multiple times, and also some mundane things that might not need links are linked.~~

→ Removed links to mundane topics like Europe and France. Also, removed the repeated linkings that I came across, except the links to magazine names and actors, as they appear in different sections, with a considerable distance between their occurrences.

~~Review the policy in linking. Something should only be linked once; or if twice, then once in the lead and once in the body. It's not necessary to link something more than once in the text.~~
→The magazine names don't have a second link anymore.

Citations - I've fixed a bit of overciting, but not all. As I noted above, if the same source is used to cite multiple sentences, it's not necessary to use a ref tag after each sentence, unless there's a direct quote, or unless it's the end of a paragraph. In some cases editors will ask that each sentence is cited, but not at FAC. Not sure what they do at GAN.

→I removed the overcitations, restricting repetitions to sentences with direct quotes, if in a group of sentences that share a reference.

Prose - still needs work. When you've finished the points I've made above, ping me and I'll do another copyedit for you.

This is coming along. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the strikethroughs by Truthkeeper, the points I updated are the Lead, Tracklisting and the Overlinking related ones. Also made a couple of tweaks reducing the usage of 'also', taking the tip from the toolbox. _morelM W^illiam 06:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

This phrase "covering horse hooves with cloth bags to muffle their sounds" is verbatim from the source. Needs to reworded or put in quotation marks. It's already attributed to the Village Voice, which is good.

Changed it to "placing cloth bags over horse hooves to muffle their sounds". Is it acceptable?

I've reworded a little; it was still too close.

The rest of my spotchecks showed appropriate paraphrasing or use of quotations.

Is over use of quotations a bad feature?

You have a lot of quotations, but it's something I do too. Some people don't like it because the article can become a quotefarm (there's a policy about this somewhere), but I think what you've done is okay. What I do is wait for a few weeks and then swing back through the page and by that time it's fairly easy to paraphrase the quotes, but it needs a little distance and perspective. Also, in my view quoting is far far better than close paraphrasing or not quoting, so you're erring on the side of caution which is good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks okay then I don't want to mess it up.

I think it's fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88 final comments

A few final comments.

I think this is probably ready to go to GAN for a GA review. The more eyes on it, the better.
I still have concerns about the number of fair use images. I believe fair use is strictly limited, but I'm not an image expert, so see how it goes. But don't be surprised if you're asked to remove some images.
The prose still needs work. At the moment I don't have time to fix it, but a GA reviewer will find specific issues to be addressed. Also, I may have time to tweak as it's waiting to be reviewed. Another option would be to choose someone from the list of PR copyedit volunteers (way at the bottom). The editor at the bottom of the list is a very good copyeditor. If this goes to FA, for sure the prose will need more work.
Otherwise, no other issues. Nice job with this expansion. It's come a long way since I first looked at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks a lot for your help. I should admit, it was your previous peer review along with an another editor's prodding to look into the French media coverage which got me working. I hope it turns out well at GAN. _morelM W^illiam 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]