Talk:Jacques Rivette/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 06:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Generally, mention the years in which the films were released in all sections of the article (For example, Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne — Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne (1945) and The Rules of the Game — The Rules of the Game (1939)).
• Replace reference no 4 with a better one as it does not mention if Rivette was educated there.
• "and sat next to Godard for several months before the latter introduced himself." — Sounds vague. What does it mean here? Better clarify this.
• "the silent film was shot in the summer of 1958 and sound added the following year" — better to rephrase it as "the silent film was shot in the summer of 1958 and sound was added the following year".

OK, I think I've taken care of all of this unless I overlooked a film or two.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

• Wikilink "French Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church in France", and write it as per the latter.
• Wikilink "Minister of Information" to "Minister of Information (France)".
• Wikilink "Minister of Culture" to "Ministry of Culture (France)".
• "with the publicity helping make it Rivette's only hit film." — Rephrase it as "with the publicity helping make it Rivette's only hit film to that point."

Done.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• "With each film revolving around two female characters, part one was to be a love story, part two a fantasy, part three an adventure and part four a musical comedy." — Would look better if you rephrased this.
• "but was never distributed." — Is this sourced?

Tweaked that sentence a little. Double checked the Wakeman book, yes it is sourced. Also, I don't quite agree with another editors recent changing on the main picture. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing much with the rest. Nice job on the article. I'll perform a source review tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• This link is a redirect to the current awards ceremony. Do find a substitute.

I'll look at the rest tomorrow.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

The sources are good. Nice work on the article, Deoliveirafan.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, always appreciate working with you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)