Misplaced Pages

Talk:Stanley Donen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:35, 2 February 2013 editDeoliveirafan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,253 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 13:43, 14 February 2013 edit undoGA bot (talk | contribs)126,241 editsm Transcluding GA reviewNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Media and drama|status=|note=}} {{GA nominee|03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Media and drama|status=onreview|note=}}


{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
Line 36: Line 36:
With all due respect, that made me laugh out loud and remember my grade school teachers bafflement at my good grades and horrendous spelling. It is not plagarized from the source, I have taken the basic information and some of the ideas and put them in my own words. I'm sure that anyone who got a copy of the book I am using would see that. I also have terrible penmanship, and mustard stains on my current shirt.--] (]) 02:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, that made me laugh out loud and remember my grade school teachers bafflement at my good grades and horrendous spelling. It is not plagarized from the source, I have taken the basic information and some of the ideas and put them in my own words. I'm sure that anyone who got a copy of the book I am using would see that. I also have terrible penmanship, and mustard stains on my current shirt.--] (]) 02:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm done with this page now, but your appreciation for the hours I spent on it is duely noted.--] (]) 02:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC) I'm done with this page now, but your appreciation for the hours I spent on it is duely noted.--] (]) 02:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Talk:Stanley Donen/GA1}}

Revision as of 13:43, 14 February 2013

Stanley Donen is currently a Media and drama good article nominee. Nominated by Deoliveirafan (talk) at 03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


Former featured article candidateStanley Donen is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 6, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stanley Donen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconDance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance
WikiProject Dance To-do list:

Images needed

I think this article needs: A good portrait of Donen, a still from On the Town from the opening scene (possibly the RCA building or central park), and better stills for Funny Face, 7 Brides and maybe Charade.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this article as a C-class article, because it contains a lot of content. However, I have some concerns. Substantially all of the information appears to have come from one source. This often presents copyright issues. Also, note that the article is rather sloppy and needs extensive proofreading to eliminate the numerous typos, stray punctuation, etc. Indeed, it is a bit suspicious that the content is so sloppy yet basically well-written, which makes me think that it may be close paraphrasing from the source. Please see WP:PARAPHRASE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, that made me laugh out loud and remember my grade school teachers bafflement at my good grades and horrendous spelling. It is not plagarized from the source, I have taken the basic information and some of the ideas and put them in my own words. I'm sure that anyone who got a copy of the book I am using would see that. I also have terrible penmanship, and mustard stains on my current shirt.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC) I'm done with this page now, but your appreciation for the hours I spent on it is duely noted.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stanley Donen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review--Singin in the Rain is one of my two or three all-time favorites. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting here any issues I can't immediately fix myself, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

Sorry that this took me longer to begin than planned. At first pass, this looks like another strong film article, and does a particularly good job of explaining Donen's long-term significance in the evolution of film. Thanks buckets for your work on this important figure.

Thanks so much for doing this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some copyedits throughout, so please doublecheck me and revert anything you disagree with. Other than those, here's the points I see that might be addressed:

  • "the last surviving notable film director of Hollywood's Golden Age" -- this needs citation as a bit of a value judgement
  • "Never gratuitous or amateurish, this scene also establishes character development and sets up the plot of the film while creating a fun, fast paced, kinetic energy that influenced all musicals that came after it" -- this evaluation should be attributed to a critic in-text ("According to John Wakeman,")
  • Yes, sorry. I didn't mean it had to be Wakeman specifically. Do you still have this book on hand to say which article this is coming from? I think a phrase like "Film critic X describes the scene as never gratuitous or amateurish, while also establishing..." would be helpful here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "The most famous sequence is the Give a Girl a Break dance between Reynolds and Fosse" -- is the title here meant to refer to an individual number? If so, as a song, it should be in quotation marks here rather than italics.
  • "film critic Jean-Luc Godard"-- would it be better to call him "director" here? He's rather more famous for that, but I see the point that he's in his role as a critic here.
  • "Their achievements reached a level of perfection on Singin' in the Rain" -- this judgement should be clearly sourced; we shouldn't say in Misplaced Pages's voice that this is a perfect film (though I personally agree that it is!).
  • "while most film directors are said to prefer Minnelli's work." -- this general statement probably needs a citation. (Who says this, specifically?)
  • Yeah, I think it's worth adding the citation also to the end of that sentence for clarity, only because the sentence already has one citation in it. I'll go ahead and do this, but revert me if you strongly disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "However it is also true " -- This appears to be a bit of WP:SYNTH--using one source to rebut another without either author having directly connected these. I suggest that this sentence be cut.
  • " It starred Zak Edwards as Donen, Charles Osburne as Kelly and Summer Broyhill as Coyne." -- the opening cast for this musical may be a little more information than is needed here, especially considering that these aren't big names. Up to you, though.

Checklist

Thanks for your fast responses. All the above looks good; I've noted the few remaining issues below.

  • Just a heads up that I won't have Internet access for the next 3-7 days. I apologize for the delay this will cause in the review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks so much for doing this. I'm fixing the web links right now and I will either get a source or rephrase the gratuitous quote. I'm also going to go over the prose at lest once and make some changes as needed. The article got a Copy Edit a little while ago and to be honest I didn't love all of the choices that the editor made in terms of re-structuring the article, so I may change certain parts back. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    Sounds good! Let me know when you're happy with it. There's no rush--I know you're doing that Greed FAC right now, too, so feel free to make that the priority. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2013 (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.
1b. 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:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. I think the article meets the minimum for this criterion, but I wanted to point out the problem that many of the website links have incorrect titles--for example, "Boston.com article on Donen" instead of the article's actual title. This would make these articles almost impossible to find if the url should move. It's not needed for me to pass this for GA, but I'd strongly suggest that the titles of these articles, and their date of publication, be added to the citations.
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).
2c. it contains no original research. The "last living Golden Age director" needs citation or to be cut.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Comprehensive without ever being over-detailed.
3b. 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. As an opinion, the "never gratuitous" quotation needs in-text attribution for POV reasons.
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:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass
Categories: