This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
I spent a few hours tonight creating this article after seeing this compelling little film, my first from scratch after several years of editing. I was wondering if it might be good enough to be nominated as a "good article", but I don't know how to do that and probably shouldn't since I'm the only one who's touched it so far. Of course, maybe it's far from being a good article and I'm not being very objective and need constructive criticism. I am seeking advice from trusted editors such as Niteshift, whom I know from films, Flyer, whom I know from scientific editing (for which some of the film's sources are relevant), and Dresken, whom I know as a fan of sci-fi, which this sort of is. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I was writing this Bearcat edited the page. Welcome and tell me what you think. Not sure if Cockburn should be redlinked like that though. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of writing an article about Cockburn as we speak. He's overdue (see also National Parks Project). Bearcat (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news (that's something I could not have started myself, I know too little about the rest of his work). Feels strange when something you've spent hours writing by yourself suddenly begins to change before your eyes. I think I know exactly how the Archivist feels now! ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The funniest thing is that you deciding to start this article overlapped directly with my deciding to spin out Jay Scott Prize from its misplaced status as a subsection of Jay Scott into its own standalone article — meaning I found your work precisely by checking to see if You Are Here, the only unlinked film listed in that article, had an article to link or not. We're clearly in mindsync, because this article wouldn't have been there if I'd done the Jay Scott thing just 12 hours ago! Bearcat (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is looking good. For opinions on the state on the article and whether or not to press forward for a WP:Good article nomination, you should ask editors at WP:Film to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovineboy, thanks for rating the article C-class from its original 'start' class. I'm still new at this article creation thing (though I'm up to about 8 or 9 now), I wonder where I might learn how the assessment criteria work? I'm not sure how much coverage is needed to get to B-class, nor what 'supporting materials' would be. Also, how to determine if an image is free and how to import it. I've made considerable additions to the article since you were last here (plot, themes, expanded production and reception/releases, with numerous references). Am I any closer? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person who evaluated this for class ranking, obviously, but since that question hasn't been answered I'll still offer the following input anyway. Strictly speaking, the class ranking isn't a measure of how much sourcing the article contains — it's a matter of how substantive and informative the article is. The availability of a lot of good sources to get the number of footnotes up certainly doesn't hurt — the challenge being that Canadian films don't always have a ton of really good sourcing, so we often have to rest on shorter stubs with only two or three footnotes than we'd like to — but having deep sources, which analyze the film in greater depth, is at least as important and valuable as having more sources is. So ultimately, the class ranking has more to do with how much substance you can extract from whatever sources exist than it does with the number of footnotes per se. And damn, you've been able to find a lot more substance here than there is for some of the films I've tried to tackle lately!
In terms of an image, the most important one to add, if possible, would be the film poster itself. Other production or screening photos wouldn't be unreasonable additions, but that's where you run into the free-image challenge — the poster itself doesn't have to be under a free license, because we can justify those under fair use. So for the poster, you're allowed to just grab it from IMDb if they have a copy there, as long as you upload it here under the correct fair use provisions — anything else besides the poster is where it gets more complicated. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, I have addressed the issues that were raised in the previous assessment: plot, images, release and reception information to beat the band and feel confident in reassigning the class to B now.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
