Talk:Drum (2004 film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

What is a good article?[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments[edit]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Prose is poor in places - "Nxumalo works for the Drum magazine, which despite being financed by whites has a multiracial staff as is frequently read by blacks." and "His confrontations with authority soon spell out his stabbing to death." There appear to be missing words.
Copyedited a bit. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cast is in list form.
I guess I'll delete this section and move it into the infobox. Any information I can find on the characters I included in the plot or production sections. Besides, I've never seen the movie, and it would be near impossible to track it down. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the Cast section and the Lead. SilkTork *YES! 14:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC) 2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. [reply]

Sourcing is good. Though Plot need attention to remove opinion and interpretation.
I see no problems. Could you specifically point them out? ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Critical reaction needed and more information on the actors and production. No section is large enough to go into "unnecessary detail". Balanced expansion in all areas would be welcomed.
I could find no more information, after a fair bit of research. Some critical reation in in the "release" section. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

It does appear to be neutral and without bias, though the Plot section needs attention.
As above, please point these out. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

There is one appropriate image in the infobox. More images (screenshots for example) would be welcome.
Added a screenshot. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial inspection.

Cast section is in list format. Read Wikipedia:FilmPlot#Cast_and_crew_information. The article is rather short, especially when compared with other film good articles. The plot section tends to use opinion and interpretation. Read WP:FILMPLOT. Very little detail in Production section. There is no critical reaction. The general reader learns very little about the film from this article. Sources appear to be good, and check out. The article was started in 2005, but remained a stub until User:Editorofthewiki took it in hand on Nov 16 this year. Editorofthewiki is also the nominator. There are no conflicts. Initial feeling is that this article would need developing before meeting GA criteria. As there is a clear standard (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines), and many examples for guidance, it is possible with some hard work to bring this up to standard in a short space of time, though it might be worth seeking assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. SilkTork *YES! 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conclusion

Article needs to be developed. It is worth studying the FilmProject's examples: Start class, B class, GA class. I feel that with a little work on the cast section, production and some critical response this could be raised to B-class. I will put this on hold for seven days, if there's been progress we can talk through how to raise to GA status. SilkTork *YES! 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe I have included any relevant information I could find. There really was very little on the film, as it was not released in U.S. theaters. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead a bit, and restored the Cast section with a little bit of development as an example of what can be done. Work to be done includes building up the Plot section in terms of detail and prose.
I expanded it slightly. Basically, that's all the reviews say about it, regurgitating the same material. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Drum magazine upon which the film is based appears to be a fascinating publication, and some explanation of the magazine in the article would be helpful and rewarding.
Added a bit. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The writing needs attention throughout as it is not always clear - "The film was also shown at the Munich Filmfest on 25 June, being the first film to be so.", ""Mock celebrations" with placards and toyi toying were held at the Essenwood Fleamarket" and "He understands how much crime Sophiatown sees when he witnesses one by Slim" - which can be rewritten as "The film opened the 2005 Munich Filmfest on 25 June.", "Events to help promote the film included toyi-toyi dances in various South African market places." and "witnesses him committing a crime in Sophiatown" (I will make those changes - removing the "understands how much crime Sophiatown sees" from the Plot section as possible "interpretation").
Glad to see. ~talk/contribs/EDDY (editor review)~ 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some research on the people and events mentioned in the article as it stands will produce more material, as well as following up on terms like "toyi" to discover what they are so they can be written out properly, wiki-linked, and then briefly explained if need be.
This article is about the film. Since this is not a documentary, events may be different than in real life. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Can you find out where the film differs from real events? Is the Slim character real, for example? The others mentioned are based on real people - but perhaps he is a dramatic invention. SilkTork *YES! 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the information in the article and the prose used to convey that information is rather sparse at the moment and needs building up a bit. This is not GA standard yet, but things can be built up and tidied as the basic bones are here. It may help to look at the examples at Wikipedia:GA#Films, especially in terms of how the prose in those articles will flow and invite the reader to read on. I'll put this on hold for another 7 days to see what develops are made. SilkTork *YES! 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just glanced at the article and I can see that a lot of work has been done. Nice one! I'll have a closer look tomorrow morning and see how close we are to meeting the criteria. SilkTork *YES! 01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. I'm aware that the Cast section needs citing, and I will take care of that as it's my addition. And I will deal with the Plot section as I think it's easier for me to do it then to explain sentence by sentence what I find problematic. But, for example - "Racism and apartheid play a major part in the film" - this is a comment on the film rather than a description of what happens. Racism is an interpretation. And "enjoy his community's night life" - the word "enjoy" is an interpretation of his emotional state. I'll do a bit of work on it. SilkTork *YES! 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you fixed the first part. I reworded the second to "Nxumalo frequently fights the racism and apartheid that is beginning to creep into his hometown." ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't worked on it as I intended. I will try to get at this tonight and hopefully will be able to pass it then. SilkTork *YES! 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd already done some good work on the Plot. I just made a few little adjustments. Cast sections don't appear to need citing, so that's not a problem. Looks like everything is sorted. Passed. SilkTork *YES! 19:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The initial review of the images is incorrect, the article currently fails criterion 6(a). The main image in the infobox (File:Drum DVD cover.jpg) has no fair-use rationale and has been tagged as such. I would also say that as currently presented the second non-free image (File:Drum screenshot.jpg) should not be used in the article. With a caption merely reading "A scene from the film" it does not aid the reader's understanding of the topic as required by criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. Does the image depict characters mentioned in the article? Does it clearly represent the style of the movie which is discussed in the article? Or is it a depiction of a notable event in the movie? Fair-use images should not be used merely as decoration - which currently seems to be the case in this instance; its purpose in the article and how it helps the reader's understanding of the topic should be firmly established. Guest9999 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added a rationale for the DVD cover. I only added the second image because SilkTork requested; I cannot find what the hell it is portraying, and does not add to the article. Will remove. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded on the rationale a bit so that it now hopefully includes everything required by Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components. Guest9999 (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drum_(2004_film)/GA1&oldid=1136283332"