Talk:The Great Silence/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to give this article a Review for possible GA status. It is massive so be patient...might take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Reference #57/Fantom.com isn't working, Reference #62 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002KM9V3I?ie=UTF8&tag=spaghetti-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B002KM9V3)I isn't working - I'm also not sure why an Amazon listing is being used as a reference, that's not reliable. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a heads up, I brought up on the talk page earlier something that never seemed to be picked up. Some of the reception section pulls from a site called the spaghetti western database, which appears to be another wiki, which is not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Any further work on this Review is until the following issues are resolved:

In the "Subversion of protagonist" section there are some troubling areas of commonality with:
Article: then delivers a symbolic "castration" upon the hero,

Source(Ref#20): The latter then delivers a symbolic "castration" upon the hero by taking the Mauser for himself after killing him

Article: Thus, when his own hands are injured, a "Freudian Cycle" is complete

Source (Ref #24): Silence would often shoot his victims in the hands, perhaps a Freudian response to his own mutilation.

Article: Silence's choice of weapon is a semi-automatic Mauser C96 – its rapid rate of fire gives him an unfair advantage over his opponents, therefore his marksmanship comes in part from technological, not physical, prowess.

Source(Ref #20): His gun is a semi automatic Mauser rather than a revolver. His accuracy with it is incredible, but the gun’s more rapid rate of fire gives him an unfair advantage over his opponents, who are using the standard single action revolvers familiar from most Westerns. His ‘exceptional ability’ in this case is more as a result of technology than any physical prowess.

This article is, in general, very well-written - I am sure that these issues are inadvertent but this section needs to be completely re-written to take care of any possible plagiarism/copyvio issues. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These issues have been adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
everything looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~See "References" section below.~~ Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pass.All of this article's referencing issues have been fixed according to WP guidelines/parameters. This article is well-written and is well-researched according to WP:GA Criteria. PatTheMoron was a pleasure to work with, worked on improving the article, taking my suggestions and running with them. Going forward, some possible future improvements would be keeping the article up-to-date with the recently-announced 4K restoration (& possible public screenings?...we can only hope). Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonist section

[The post below was originally posted on my talkpage, but I moved it here to keep all the discussion on the Review page. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)][reply]
Thank you very much for your review of The Great Silence. I removed the Amazon-related info from the DVD section, but how do you recommend I go about with the other changes you recommended? What should I rewrite within the protagonist section? PatTheMoron (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've read a lot of articles/books about the movie? Write something up in your sandbox in your own words, paraphrasing what these other writers have stated in published sources and use their books/articles as the references. You can use references as your sources, you just have to put their information into your own words. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, I've rewritten part of the protagonist section to explicitly mention the writers who described the film in the terms they did. Is it okay, now? PatTheMoron (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PatTheMoron: Am taking another look at that - I'm actually doing a deep proofread-readthrough, so I'll let you know. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

As User:Andrzejbanas mentions in GA Criteria 2B, some of the information is sourced from a user-edited website the "Spaghetti Western Database". Some of the statements might be ok, but this issue needs to be discussed & hashed-out here before I can pass on 2B as being fulfilled. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #7's website name has changed, Please update it to "http://film.thedigitalfix.com/content.php?contentid=12471". Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PatTheMoron: I see you fixed Reference #7. Have you been able to work on what to do about the Spaghetti Western Database? References from user-submitted websites are not reliable sources. I would like to finish up this Review but I cannot until these various refs are dealt with: Ref #8, #32, #33, #34, #34. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my late reply, but I've kept the SWDB source about the ending while changing the sources regarding the top 10 lists. Will this do? PatTheMoron (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PatTheMoron: No apologies necessary, Life sometimes interferes with Wikipedia-ing. I think that your changes are probably sufficient, but since Andrzejbanas raised the issue up-page I'm pinging them to weigh in. The remaining cite within the main text is for an action that the members of that website took - is there some other reliable source/reference that states this information? I do have an issue with how the SWDb linkage within External Links is represented - is the present linkage/SWDb URL in External links really the official website? Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the issues I brought up before. I'd agree with Shearonink, it's a good idea to have this site as an external link, but this whole extra credit is purely fan driven and sourcing another wiki. The statement does not even cover what it addresses. For example, it states "However, a version with Italian dubbing was eventually discovered, and has been translated into English by members of the Spaghetti Western Database fansite.". The site make no mention of it being discovered, but just offers a translation of footage in a youtube clip. Personally, I'd remove this until more information becomes available. In the past 15 years, there has been a lot more published in print and online about Italian genre films then I could ever dream of. I imagine that better sources will become available. Until then, I'd prefer removing this statement per my reasons above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PatTheMoron:

If a reliable source could be found for that statement about the Italian dubbing, that would pass muster, otherwise the statement & ref should be removed.
The External links URL still states within its coding that the Spaghetti Western website is the official website - this should be adjusted within the code to reflect that the spaghetti-western.net link is not the official website of the movie.

As soon as these two matters are dealt with, I will be able to finish up this Review. Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it! The new info I found on the recent 4K restoration of the film mentions that the sound elements of the alternative ending do exist. Should I use that as the main source instead? PatTheMoron (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PatTheMoron: Oh, I see that you already took care of that while I was writing something else up - good job. The remaining issue is that the Spaghetti Western link in the External Links section is using the "official website" template and it really isn't the official website. I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea from looking at the internal Wiki-code. If you could take care of that I ca finish up this Review later today. Shearonink (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PatTheMoron (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]