Talk:Annie Hall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fail as unstable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images are appropriately tagged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• There is a reference section. It uses the slightly more awkward short citation method; however, that method is acceptable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. There are short paragraphs in places, and at times the sentences are a little choppy, but that would be for ongoing development. The prose adequately conveys meaning without confusion, and meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Mos - words to watch and fiction are OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Major aspects and Focused. This is a fascinating, complex and important film, which has been much studied and discussed, so there is plenty of material to cover and include, and there is room for development in a number of areas in the article - such as style and themes; however, the article does bring all the major aspects to the attention of the reader and deals with them in a satisfactory manner - providing enough detail to inform without swamping the reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• List section of MoS criteria now met. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Images are relevant and have appropriate captions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Article now appears stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Query

• OR. The Plot section appears to wander into interpretation here: "their awkward small talk led her to offer him first a ride up town" (was it the awkward small talk that actually led to the invite, or was the awkward small talk something that happened before the invite?), and here: " their separate discussions with their therapists make it evident there is an unspoken divide" (SparkNotes has this more factually, informatively and neutrally as: "Alvy and Annie talk to their respective therapists about their sexual problems. According to Annie, they “constantly” sleep together; Alvy says “hardly ever.”[1]). We also have "he becomes an animated Snow White to Annie’s evil queen", when he actually appears as himself in the cartoon strip. And "The last meeting for them is a wistful coda". On a personal level I agree the ending is wistful (I'm watching it again as I'm typing this, and I'm all welling up!), but it is an interpretation. I am aware that WP:FILMPLOT encourages editors to see the film itself as the source for the Plot section; however, given that a film like Annie Hall has multiple reliable source for the plot, and that, as the plot is non-linear and is structured in such a way as to give meaning and emotional impact for the viewer, it would be advisable and not difficult to get sources. I would as both a general reader, and as a GA reviewer be more reassured by having the Plot section sourced, and slightly rewritten so that it is closer to what we see on screen, and allow each reader/reviewer to make their own interpretations. If there is an interpretation to be made regarding Plot, that should be given to a source, as in "X says ....". That the plot is non-linear appears to be important (it is frequently mentioned in other plot summaries, and in discussions, such as here), and could be picked up on later in the Style and technique section. It might be worth letting people know that the opening is Alvy Singer doing a monologue straight to camera, as that does contrast with the ending sequence which includes Alvy directing a film - there is the sense both of the development of the character, and of the development of Allen himself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's true that plot sections don't require sources; that subject is covered in the relevant guideline. I don't believe there is actually OR in the plot section. Why does it say that there is a "divide" when they see their psychiatrists? Because there is literally a divide in the screen. So that's just a factual report, and given the limitation of space a good one. In the penultimate scene Alvy is not directing a film -- or at least that would be an interpretation. I think he's doing a play, but it's ambiguous. Is the ending a wistful coda? Well, it's definitely a coda. Given the music and the voiceover, it seems accurate to summarize it as wistful. The Snow White thing could be altered in some way, but Alvy does reference Snow White. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank for that explanation. Would you look again at my concerns. "their separate discussions with their therapists make it evident there is an unspoken divide" is an interpretation without a reliable source, and the statement is asserting the interpretation firmly - "evident" - without giving the reader a base or evidence from which to make their own judgement. Because in this film the plot, the structure, and the filming do contribute meaning, it would help to have sources for each of these aspects, particularly if we are to discuss those meanings, and even more so if we are tell the reader conclusively what that meaning is. Would you consider that informing the reader that the scene was shot with a divide is more useful and more compliant with Wikipedia policy than telling the reader that there is an "unspoken divide" in their relationship. Why "unspoken"? Where has that come from? This film is packed with speech - these characters never cease talking to each other, to other people, and to us. Can the scene be interpreted as interpretation - they are in the same room, talking about the same thing, but their own interpretations are different - not so much a divide, as different sides of the same coin. Is it about perception? They both say they have sex three times a week, but for one that's hardly ever, while for the other that's constantly. That's like looking at the same glass, and one seeing it half empty, and the other half full. I could go on - but my point is that the scene is complex, and what is happening can be (and has been) interpreted different ways. "unspoken divide" is one way, and some people would be comfortable with that, while others might find that interpretation rather limited and simplistic. Each to their own - and so we should allow the reader their own interpretation by sticking to the facts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

*Stable. Recent edit history shows some reverting taking place, and augmentative edit summaries. It might be appropriate to have a discussion about this to clarify if the matters have been resolved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• As part of the development of the Plot section it is going to need sources, so I am putting that as a query. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

*MoS. Cast section starts appropriately as prose, then finishes as a list. WP:FILMCAST and WP:EMBED (part of the GA criteria) frowns upon such lists, and mixing prose with a list is particularly awkward. Image use is not compliant with WP:LAYIM as images are placed in inappropriate sections. The article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The American Film Institute recognition list might be better summarised in prose. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Cast section is formally fine. If for some reason a list and a paragraph don't belong in the same section (and I don't think that's true) then two subsections will do. There are two different forms of information so they are in different forms. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving your view. The pages I link above do indicate that prose is preferred over lists. WP:EMBED explains why: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Telling us that Diane Keaton played Annie Hall gives us some information; telling us that the role of Annie Hall was written specifically for Keaton, who had previously worked with Allen, gives us much more information. We have four people (?) playing themselves in cameo roles. This information does not come out clearly in a simple list - so it would be helpful to indicate it in prose. It's also worth noting that the major actors are already listed in the info box. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the list, and I think it is best we go with Prose. I'll have to add more to the section though. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Article is looking better without the lists, though I still have a concern with the American Film Institute recognition list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Edit warring has occurred again. I have locked the article for three days. If edit warring occurs again after the three days have expired I will consider closing the review as failed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• "Technically, the film marked an advance for the director." I agree, and note that there is some discussion on the techniques used in the film. However, to support such a statement, I think it might be helpful to compare this film with previous films, or to at least make explicit what the actual advance was. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
• Why are there multiple cites in places, such as at the "other romantic comedies have inspired comparison" sentence? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Cause, they required the multiple cites as proof. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• The image for Alvy's (imagined?) childhood home I took to be misplaced as it is in the Production section. However I can see that it is there to illuminate the statement that Allen came upon the location while filming and so decided to include it. I think it's just that the caption needs adjusting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you think we should have the Plot section go in the nonlinear storyline, like the film, or tell the relationship through a linear timeline. The latter method was used on the similar romantic comedy, (500) Days of Summer, and I was thinking of using it on this article. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

I'm not too concerned about which method is used, as long as there is reassurance given to the reader that the descriptions of the plot and implications (or interpretations) arising from the plot are those of reliable sources rather than Wikipedia editors. "Alvy enjoys mocking", for example, is interpretation, and it's an interpretation that I don't think can be supported by the film itself which in that sequence could be seen to show Alvy as nervous, anxious, obsessive, disgusted or disturbed while discussing the previous lovers. I think looking for sources that describe the plot will help decide on the most appropriate way of describing what is going on. For example, the ending is described here as, "The last meeting for them is a coda on New York's Upper West Side when they have both moved on to someone new. Alvy’s voice returns with a summation: love is essential, especially if it's neurotic. Annie torches "Seems Like Old Times" and the credits roll." while this source makes mention of the importance of the empty frame, as does this. I think there is much to be gained from looking at and citing the sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The images of Allen and Keaton add nothing. People look to audited articles as models for what to do, and so I would be uncomfortable passing these articles with unnecessary images. There are images that could (possibly should) be used. Keaton's dress style as Annie made an impact - [books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hemsvn9ZbRkC&pg=PA336], [books.google.co.uk/books?id=nxdY5abnM64C&pg=PA41], [books.google.co.uk/books?id=LH0ji7oRjkwC&pg=PA49], [books.google.co.uk/books?id=LsIhtO6zcAgC&pg=PA161], [books.google.co.uk/books?id=FRVwZtaeGogC&pg=PA3], [books.google.co.uk/books?id=TNdkota-2ssC&pg=PT117], etc. So an image, such as [2] would be very appropriate, and provided there was sourced discussion of her dress style, could be used as a Fair Use image same as File:2001child2.JPG. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I unfortunately do not know how I can add such photos to the article NoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

I have added an iconic image of Keaton. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am suspending this review as I note that reverting is continuing. My advice is that either an attempt is made to resolve differences, or one of the editors in this conflict withdraws/is asked to withdraw from editing the article and getting involved in the review while it is in progress. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

On hold

The article meets GA criteria apart from the Lead and the Plot. A little bit of work is needed to develop those sections appropriately as indicated above. I understand there is some uncertainty about how to develop the Plot section, so I'm willing to help out on that, though that will have to wait until I'm back in the UK after Jan 5th. The hold is for an initial seven days, though I'm OK with extending for longer as long as progress is being made. At this stage I don't see the article as failing provided the work is done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Progress has not been made. Indeed, since putting on hold there has been an edit war over the producer(s), and a cast list has been reintroduced into the article, taking it backwards. I am unwilling to help out on unstable articles, and see little value in continuing a review, where problems are being deliberately re-inserted into the article despite being resolved in the review.

I am closing this review as not passed for GA, and I suggest that the contributors resolve disputes about content and layout before re-submitting for review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with restoring it, but I was glad to see the Cast list return. Cast lists are good - I like them, and I believe most readers like them. One should not have to go through the prose to try to put the cast together. I do not understand why some WP editors are against lists, saying they break up the prose. I see nothing wrong with breaking up the prose, particularly if it serves a purpose. I find cast lists to be an asset. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)