Talk:The Gardener's Son

Comment

In the #Research and screenwriting (3.3) section (image caption), should "Negative Capability" be capitalized? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (NB- I have seen it is capitalized in Pearce's citation)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Gardener's Son/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Blz 2049, I'm done with my GA review. This article is very close to GA status - please fix/clarify the minor issues below and then we should be set! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Thank you very much for your thoughtful, thorough review! I've responded to your comments below. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

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.	What does "sometimes highly miscellaneous" mean?  Done Great question! I'm sure I meant something by it when I wrote it? But I don't remember what I intended anymore, and reading it back now I'm as mystified as you. I think the phrase may refer to the sheer breadth of their research, i.e. that it came to include a significant amount of background information, even some that were not necessarily within the purview of what was strictly needed for writing the screenplay. In any case I think the sentence is stronger without it, so I cut the phrase. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Overall, very well-written. As is my usual practice, I've made minor tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you disagree with, just let me know. Thank you! I appreciate your tweaks—that's usually my style when doing GA reviews as well, it's faster and easier for both of us. While reviewing your tweaks I made two minor countertweaks, but by and large your revisions looked like obvious improvements to me. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no unreferenced passages.
	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).	Mostly newspaper sourcing from reputable local newspapers, plus a couple national papers. A few academic sources, largely books on McCarthy, as well. No concerns. Spot check Pearce, Arnold & Luce, Luce 1999, and Josyph a couple of cites for each - all good based on snippets I can see.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing concerning (a few quotes were flagged) and a manual spot-check of sources revealed no other issues of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Unable to find any other areas of coverage. Highly detailed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No areas of overdetail after a few minor trims during prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues, critical reception section is well-written and correctly reflects the intent of the reviewers.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Most work done last August, talk page comment addressed. Pass.
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.	I'm not sure I understand the copyright logic fully behind the use of the Daily Times-News photos, specifically this one. Do newspapers publish a copyright notice as part of every single issue? Are all pre-1978 newspaper photos public domain in papers/issues which did not do so? If you could restate the case, that would be great, thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Was every individual issue of a periodical (magazine, newspaper, etc.) required to carry its own copyright notice in order to preserve its publisher's copyright interest in that issue's contents? The answer is decisively "yes"—strange but true. Pre-1978 US copyright law was highly formalistic, and it was relatively easy for publishers to inadvertently forfeit copyright protections. Every individual issue of a newspaper is treated as its own distinct published work. They couldn't comply with the notice requirement by other means, such as by printing one super-notice covering all past or future issues for the year. (Advertisements in turn were required to include their own individual notices—newspaper publishers do not claim ownership of ads published within their pages, as any intellectual property in an ad belongs to the advertiser). Big national newspapers like the New York Times—with their staff's deep institutional knowledge, and the financial resources to seek the counsel of fancy lawyers—have almost always had their shit together and printed valid copyright notices on every issue, every time. However, I've found that smaller regional newspapers sometimes neglected this important formality. For any images sourced from newspapers in the article, I checked each page of the entire issue, front to back, found no notice—although as a practical matter, for most pre-1978 newspaper issues that did include such a notice, the notice would typically be found either on the front cover or within the first few pages on the masthead (where publishers provide contact information for their office, credits for editorial staff, and other publication info). Sources for the above: §2207.1(E) and §2207.2 of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, 3rd edition. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the thorough explanation. Pass!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Regrettably, despite the obvious effort which went into procuring them, I don't think the images of Dourif and McCarthy in the cast section are high-quality enough or necessary enough to justify inclusion. I don't disagree about the unfortunately compromised quality, thanks to the photos being reduced to black-and-white newsprint then scanned into compressed digital form. But that said, the images are public domain and show the actors in-character, in-costume. For films as late as the 1970s, images like these in any useable quality are a precious find. The photo of McCarthy is I think of particular interest: before I uploaded it to Commons, I don't believe it's been republished or even circulated (except perhaps privately among McCarthy scholars) before. I'd much prefer to keep them tbh! I would certainly replace them if I found superior quality scans that also happen to be verifiably public domain. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Hmm - I still disagree, but it's not enough to keep the article from GA quality. I don't think we need both the LA Times and NYTimes advertisements - keep one and remove the other. Issue addressed.  Done You raised a good point here; I kept the NY Times ad since it's just about The Gardener's Son and removed the LA Times since it was a calendar for the Visions series as a whole. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.