Talk:Lost in Translation (film)/GA1

GA Review

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

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.

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;

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

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).

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:

(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.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The prose is generally excellent, with some small exceptions that can be fixed relatively quickly. In the themes section, “The concept of ‘lost in translation’ occurs throughout the film with a number of meanings” should be rewritten for clarity. Something like, "Several things are lost in translation over the course of the film, both literally and figuratively speaking". Of course, if this sentence is used, several themes must be explored. More on that later. Also in the themes section, there is no need in the last paragraph to mention that Bob and Charlotte are the main characters and American. This should be clear from the plot section already. The extra information is redundant. Additionally, the use of scare quotes in the last paragraph is unclear. The characters are either lost or they aren't. If the sentence is about culture shock, it should specifically discuss culture shock, not dance around the term. There are probably one or two things I haven't mentioned here. Proofread the entire article once more and don't be afraid to rehash some of the sentences if you think you can make them clearer. Be bold in your edits! Again, the article already looks to be in great shape, just needs a couple of tweaks before I can pass it on this point.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	Again, generally great save two things that need tweaking. First: the lead section mentions facts and ideas that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. For the themes, only loneliness is explored elsewhere in the article. Alienation, insomnia, existential ennui and culture shock are only specifically mentioned in the lead. Information about the film's budget is likewise only mentioned in the lead. Lead sections are only supposed to mention content that is explored elsewhere in the article. Study up on WP:LEAD and you'll be writing great leads in no time. Second: the "Release" and "Box Office" sections should be merged as they go over the same type of information.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There are some missing references. Specifically: 1. The film's $4 million budget in the lead. 2. The Robert Frost quote in "Themes" 3. Hibiki 17 Year Old whisky in "Themes" 4. "Many of the interior scenes were shot overnight" in "Filming" (I couldn't find that fact in the cited reference. I could be wrong, but please point it out to me.) 5. At least two missing citations in the first paragraph of "Accolades" 6. No citation for BAFTA Awards facts in third paragraph of "Accolades". Again, there could be more. Please be extremely thorough with your citations, as these are the most important aspect of wikipedia. For more information, please see WP:ORIGINAL. If you can't cite it, you must delete it from the article.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Citations 2 and 3 refer to the same article and should be merged. Citations 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 41 should be expanded into full citations that offer some more information. Make sure there is enough information for readers to know what's being cited. Some of these citations are technically acceptable, but all of them appeared in print. Try to include enough information to find the print archive if the website were to be moved or taken offline. Citation 12 needs to be cleaned up so that it looks like an author or article, not a date, is being cited. Most of the 55 citations are exceptionally well formatted. Nicely done.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Without all of the citations, I can't be sure. Fix the citations, and remove what you can't cite, or I have to fail the article here.	Fail

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article hits all the right notes, but the themes section needs improvement before it meets GA criteria. Please make sure that all of the themes mentioned in the lead appear explicitly in the themes section.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The only section that can be improved here is "Plot". Consider examining WP:PLOTSUM. How might you make the plot summary a little bit more concise? The plot is exceedingly simple (even if the emotions at play aren't). Consider cutting some minor details out of the summary. For instance, do we really need to know that a bowl of snacks were involved in Bob and Charlotte's first meeting? It's GA material, just know that it can still be improved! Nicely done.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
NTox has suggested a significant amounts of negative scholarly opinion is absent from the article. Let's figure this out.	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
A pretty stable article. I am however a bit worried about what NTox is planning to do with it. Are the changes really so big that they warrant removing the article from WP:GAN?	Fail

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yup.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Also yup, but consider shots of Tokyo for the Filming section, and perhaps a picture of Scarlett Johansson or Sofia Coppola somewhere. No need, but might add to the article. Up to you.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	I will put the article on hold for seven days. If the edits are not well underway by 5:00 PM mountain time May 2, then the article will be failed and will have to be re-nominated. It's close though! UPDATE: Since no changes were made to the article in the allotted timeframe, this article fails its GA review. I encourage future editors to make changes and resubmit it in the future.

Discussion

Hi, Rawlangs. As you know, I did not nominate this article, but I noticed that you mentioned me. To answer your question: I have spent the last month or so diligently researching this film with the intent of nominating the article for featured status in about two months. So far, I've read most of its scholarly material, the book that's been written about it, and the production literature. In short, I'm compiling every reliable source on it that's been published. While I have no prejudice against this GAN, I have intentionally avoided nominating the article myself because I do not believe it meets the criteria (like #3A). The article, as it stands, leaves out a tremendous amount of thematic information (as you mentioned), and I am not sure it even mentions the allegations of racism, of which a number of notable critics have made. IMO, it's not close to the 'broad' criterion (which, of course, I understand is different from 'comprehensive'). There are also some nuggets of OR scattered throughout. In part, this is why I made the decision to IAR the nomination last week, but more importantly it was because I did not want anyone to use their time evaluating it and tweaking since it will be re-written with brand new material in less than two months. Of course, I don't own anything here, but in light of the upcoming stability concern and the major holes, I would be tempted to hold off on it. Strictly personally, I don't plan on working on the article this week (and I couldn't even if I wanted to, because I don't have enough information yet in my notes to get it up to #3A in time), but I'll ride with the flow. Best, NTox · talk 07:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. As you know, the stability concern refers to changes from ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Unless you expect your edits to be strongly controversial, I don't think they can affect the current GA nomination. If there are instances of OR I haven't listed, I would be very interested in having them listed here.

The article does (briefly) touch on issues of racism, but only through a single citation. If there is important information missing, I would focus on incorporating those edits first and working them into the lead section. Controversies are extremely important to include as their exclusion or suppression from an article significantly biases it.

You put me in a bit of a tricky situation. If you tell me that some important points are not addressed in the article, I can't really pass 3A. However, if you are merely intending on expanding elements already present in the themes and critical response sections, the article will have addressed the main points after minor expansion of the themes section, and can pass 3A.

In my experience, articles rarely pass GA without improvements. Editors can use GAN to target the most important edits in an article, and I feel like that's what Rusted AutoParts is doing here. In GAN, reviewers typically assume that edits and citations are made in good faith. As a result, I am not required to read every source, or thoroughly research the topic myself. My role (with minor exceptions) is to improve the mechanics, organization, and scope of the text in front of me. If the article appears to be complete, I can assume that it is. FA status requires a peer review, which involves many more members of the community and is much more thorough. Each stepping stone is supposed to incrementally improve the article. Thus, if this GA nomination results in substantive improvements to the page, it's done its job. Typically, articles that hit FA go through GAN first.

After this GA review, please let me know if I can be of any help improving the page. When I'm not bound by the rules of GA, I tend to be a bit more dynamic in my suggestions. I will also be more free to make major edits. Thanks for your prompt and on-point feedback! --Rawlangs (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note I have put the status of this review on hold as that seems to be the intention. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional Notes

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)