Talk:Station to Station (2021 film)

I have completed a comprehensive scrub of the article for neutrality, made appropriate changes section-by-section, and removed the associated flag

Arrived here after clearing a flag on the article about the director of this film's father. First, I'll attest I have no connection to this subject beyond knowing the director's father (not personally) when I worked on a sports project in Louisville involving Ft. Knox KY and he was the deputy post commander and liaison to our sports project. To date, I've only edited that article, and just finished clearing some flags there by finding and adding new citations. While I mostly found this article following links from that one out of curiosity, I've enjoyed that process and can help with this one, too. As a retired historian currently at home due to COVID, I'm happy to make this my second article and then see where else I can help. I'll note here once I'm done with assessing and improving the neutrality and then will remove the flag. - LH

UPDATE: Took the following steps and then cleared the flag.

1. Went section by section to remove and/or revise language that could be considered marketing language/puffery. Few changes were required, but I erred on the side of extreme objectivity and thus made even minor changes/revisions as needed to increase objectivity, including simple rephrasing of sentences or replacing/removal of single words.

2. Added citation and personally reviewed the source plot/summaries written by the filmmakers in the film's press kit and IMDb page to ensure the Wikipedia summary was original and not a simply reprint of the film's own language. I have VERIFIED this plot is original and appropriate for Wikipedia.

3. As the "critics" response/reviews section is the one easiest to skew (by selectively including only praise and ignoring criticisms), I spent the most time here. I personally read each cited review to make sure they were accurately portrayed and then did my own independent searches on two search engines to make sure no reviews were excluded intentionally. This is an accurate summary of existing reviews as of today. They are all favorable and the criticisms found in one of them are accurately quoted and contextualized.

3.1 HOWEVER, to err on the side of objectivity, and simply keep the article focused, I removed a final bit of quoted praise from that review, which applied only to the director and not the film. It served to (likely unintentionally) "soften" the criticism, and while an argument could be made for its inclusion, I removed it as it applied only to the director (not the film) and was a "prediction" of the director's future success and not a review of the film, which is the subject of the article. This increased the overall neutrality of that section by keeping it focused on the film. And, as I mentioned, I verified that the characterization of reviews as favorable, and the inclusion of specific quotes was indeed a) accurate and b) representative of the totality of reviews as of January 15, 2022.

I'm open to any feedback as to my methodology and results, as I found this to be a very satisfying experience and good use of my skills. I've only worked on the two articles so far, so I'd like to continue, but I'm not an article "writer." I'm much better at this kind of research, auditing, and validation. Feedback appreciated!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OldKentuckyFriend (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC) 

OldKentuckyFriend, while I think you did a reasonable job, particularly as a new editor, I would not have called it "comprehensive" and would have suggested asking other editors to review before removing the maintenance tags. I have done another edit, remove extraneous descriptions and repeated wording that still read as the kind of thing someone associated with the film would say about it, rather than a neutral encyclopaedia article. I'm happy to explain anything if you have questions about what I've done. Thank you Melcous (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Melcous, thank you! I understand your feedback and your concerns with the word "comprehensive." Before I tackle my next one, I'll add steps where I review for extraneous description and repeated wording of the kind you describe to my list. I can see how those final scrubs, beyond the tightening of language, source reviews/validation, etc. I already see one flagged that is a natural extension of the two articles I've already worked on and probably shares some of the sources used in this article, so I'll apply this methodology and these standards to that, document it the same way I have here (but avoid "comprehensive") and request review. I'm enjoying the process so far. Thanks for the feedback. OldKentuckyFriend (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)