Talk:A Trip to the Moon/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within the week. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

More later. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * General comments after glancing at the article but preceding the actual review:
 * The lead needs expanding per WP:FILMLEAD, "... Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body".
 * There are 5 "Harv errors" in the Ref section. If you install this, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, the errors are immediately visible in red/bold.
 * Ref87: pp. 18 --> p. 18


 * The infobox uses the title card instead of the original theatrical poster, and according to Template:Infobox film, "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article". I found many "contemporary" posters here, so please do upload something from there. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rosiestep: Thanks so much. I've installed the code and fixed the Harv errors, and will get to work on the lead.


 * Kailash29792: Thank you for your interest in the page. A contemporary theatrical poster for the film would be a great addition to the article, but, as far as I can tell, none survive. Following the links from the Google Image search reveals that the "posters" there are all modern images; for example, this one was made in 2012 as a collectible art print, this one used to be the WP article image but was taken down when it was proven to date from the mid 20th-century, and this one is the very title card I uploaded, digitally manipulated to look like a poster! It's true that posters and DVD covers exist related to the 2011 restoration with music by Air, but using one of those in the infobox would be tantamount to promoting a single copyrighted release of the film rather than the public-domain film itself, so that doesn't seem like a viable solution either.


 * So, given the lack of an authentic poster authorized by Méliès, I've turned to the advice on Template:Infobox film: "In the absence of an appropriate poster or cover image, a screenshot of the film's title card may also be used." Please let me know what you think, and thanks again.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: I've expanded the lead, and I think (mind you, I did say "think") that it now covers everything that WP:FILMLEAD asks of it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that the lead section gives the official French title as "Voyage dans la Lune", but the infobox pic says "Le Voyage dans la Lune". Why is "Le" missing in the lead? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question. I took the titles from Jacques Malthête's 2008 Méliès filmography, which consistently uses the earliest available titles found in Méliès's official catalogues. However, Malthête also acknowledges that these titles were sometimes changed in later editions of the catalogues; in this case, it's clear that the film eventually became known as "Le Voyage dans la Lune". I've added a short explanation of the missing "Le" in footnote [a]; see what you think.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * add wl - silent film
 * "...in tow" - needs rewording
 * Done both.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 3 only contains 1 sentence. Seems that more could be added to the paragraph.
 * Refs aren't needed in the lead unless there is an extraordinary claim
 * I think what is sourced is appropriate actually, one being in a footnote about the naming, and the second naming it as one of the 100 best films I think is actually a bold claim in which a citation doesn't look too out of place. Agreed on the UNESCO ref though which I've removed. The data in the infobox is OK sourced I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Méliès's - Méliès' (needs to be fixed elsewhere in the article as well)
 * I think I prefer Méliès's.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Plot
 * "At a meeting of the Astronomic Club, their president Professor Barbenfouillis..." - their vs. its; also, add comma after president
 * "calls down ..." - needs rewording
 * "dashes him..." - needs rewording
 * "exploding him" - needs rewording
 * "The astronomers run back to their capsule while continuing to hit the pursuing Selenites, and five get inside." - clarify that the astronomers get inside, not the Selenites
 * Addressed the above. I've actually added The sixth astronomer, to the next sentence so it should make it clear what is being referred to previously.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "marines" - it's lc here but uc in the Cast section; go for consistency
 * What's lc and uc? sorry!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cast
 * "Georges Méliès as Professor Barbenfouillis.[1][12] Méliès, a pioneering French filmmaker and magician now generally regarded as the first person to recognize the potential of narrative film,[13] had already achieved considerable success with his film versions of Cinderella (1899) and Joan of Arc (1900);[14] his extensive involvement in all of his films—as director, producer, writer, designer, technician, publicist, editor, and often actor—makes him one of the first cinematic auteurs.[15] " - this sentence is too long
 * Done, also removed the dashes which I don't think are needed in a separate sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Inspirations
 * "have frequently suggested" - frequently suggested
 * add wl - Buffalo, New York
 * Altered both. I've also reworded it to Inspiration.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Filming
 * "Méliès' longest film to date" - this suggests he's still making films
 * "mechanically operated" - mechanically-operated
 * "Many of the special effects in A Trip to the Moon, as in many of Méliès's films..." - many/many
 * Addressed all three.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * add wls - New York City, Washington D.C., Cleveland, Detroit, New Orleans, and Kansas City


 * Black-and-white print
 * In 1917 - add comma
 * In 1925 - add comma
 * add wl - Los Angeles
 * Done all expect Los Angeles which I can't find. MoS guidelines I believe advise against linking big cities like NYC and LA though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Style
 * "(The stationary position of the camera, which became known as one of Méliès's characteristic trademarks, was one of the most important elements of the style; he often moved his camera when making actualities outdoors—for example, 15 of his 19 short films about the 1900 Paris Exposition were shot with a moving camera setup—but he considered a theatrical viewpoint more appropriate for the fiction films staged in his studio.)" - too much content in parentheses
 * Trimmed and split.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Legacy
 * "A Trip to the Moon remains Méliès's most famous film as well as an iconic example of early cinema, with the image of the capsule stuck in the Man in the Moon's eye particularly famous" - famous/famous
 * Reworded, its the eye which is the iconic image.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ELs
 * Filmsquish — Blog-A-Thon of critics celebrating the film - not encyclopedic so rmv it
 * Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost done; will finish later. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've addressed most points I think. Article looks in good shape at a glance, excellent work Lemuellio. I'll give it a full read and edit if necessary and see if I can add anything to it tomorrow if that's OK with both of you. Looks like it already has a very good grasp of the main elements though which is all that is needed for GA but we'll see.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * and : Thank you both so much! I appreciate the detailed review, and was surprised and delighted to find everything already taken care of.


 * Having studied the review and Dr. Blofeld's work, I've made a few small changes as follows, but am open to discussion about them:


 * Inspiration: It seems to me that "historians have frequently suggested X" implies that historians have often suggested X in the past and continue to suggest it occasionally, whereas "historians frequently suggested X" implies that they used to suggest X but no longer do. The former is what I meant, not the latter, so I've tentatively changed it back. Let me know if this seems wrong.


 * Filming: I had always heard (and a quick Google search seems to verify) that grammarians discourage using hyphens after adverbs, so I've changed "mechanically-operated" back to "mechanically operated."


 * Style: I completely agree that the parenthetical information about camera movement was awkwardly placed; thanks for addressing it. I fear, however, that the revised version may strike readers as a bit confusing. I'm experimenting with setting the whole passage as a footnote, which seems to work a little better.


 * Legacy: Good catch of the double "famous, and good point about what "iconic" should describe. I've tweaked the wording a bit, just so the paragraph will flow better.


 * Again, thanks so much. I look forward to continuing the review process.--Lemuellio (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

and - Good job, both of you. I think this is about ready to pass. I'll check back tomorrow in case you make additional improvements. P.S. lc = lower case; uc/UC = upper case. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just fixed the lc/uc inconsistency. And yes,, please do feel free to make whatever additional edits you think appropriate.--Lemuellio (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've finished with it now, should be fine to pass now. It reads very well! Compare it with the French wiki article!! Should bring a smile to your face Lemuellio! Such an important film article!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: