Talk:Jack the Giant Slayer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks like excellent work. It's well written, well sourced, and appears to cover major aspects of the topic (plot, production, reception, box office, etc.). I made some minor changes as I went.[1] Feel free to revert any you find objectionable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Two quibbles I couldn't immediately fix myself:

• " allows them to eat Isabelle and Elmont" -- this makes it sound like it happens, which I assume it doesn't (I haven't seen this film)--how about "gives them permission to eat..."?
• "The film holds a" -- you should add an "As of --- 2013," onto this--not that the critical consensus is likely to dramatically change any time soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	See clarity question above. Spotchecks show serious copyright concerns.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See minor point above re: WP:REALTIME (a number that could go out of date).
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.
	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.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	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.

• Spotchecks are showing some copyright concerns here. I imagine it's not your fault--I know an article like this draws a ton of editors and is hard to police--but it looks like some plagiarized material snuck into the article early on, and thorough checks may be needed. These are small borrowings but we still can't use these sources' language almost word-for-word.

"Stanley Tucci as Lord Roderick, an adviser to the king with designs on usurping power" seems to be almost an exact quotation of source [2] without quotation marks. " Elmont, the leader of the king’s elite guard, who helps fight giants" also appears to be cut-paste from source.[3] " Aaron Johnson, Nicholas Hoult, and Aneurin Barnard were up for the young farmer role, and Adelaide Kane, Lily Collins, and Juno Temple were testing for the part of the princess" --almost exact quotation from [4]

• " The Hollywood Reporter reported that Stanley Tucci had been cast as the villain, an adviser to the king with designs on usurping power, and Bill Nighy and John Kassir would play Fallon, the giants' two-headed leader; Nighy would play the big head and Kassir the small head" -- repeats almost exact quotation from [5]

I have to run out for a bit with the Mrs. and Little Miss, but a deeper look will be needed here to make sure the problem is limited to this early production stuff. We'll need to do some clean-up either way. Thanks again for your work on all this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, I have made all the changes as suggested (see difference), please let me know if there are any more.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your fast response. I did five more randomly selected spotchecks, and out of those, one came back bad, with phrases and sentences cut-pasted from the source: [6] "Puzzlewood, which features unusual tree and rock formations ... The same forest is said to have inspired J. R. R. Tolkien to write The Hobbit." It looks like you were responsible for this one, unfortunately.[7]

It appears to me that this article is going to need every sentence checked against the sources for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. While the sourcing is clear, it still raises serious copyright issues to use identical or nearly identical language to a source without quotation marks. Would you be willing to do a check like the one I'm describing? I'll then doublecheck your work. Normally an article would be failed in this situation, but it seems more sensible for you and me to simply collaborate to clean up the issue. The article is GA-caliber in other respects. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do, though it might take me a few days. I'll let you know when its done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Since it's now been about a week without further action, I'm closing this review. This seems close to GA in almost all respects, but will need a thorough check for other small copyvios like the ones noted above. I hope that happens in the future so that this can be passed--your work on it is much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)