Talk:Bad Day at Black Rock/GA1

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

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'll begin the review later today. Daß Wölf 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thank you for taking this on. Please let me know if I can help in any way. All the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thank you for contributing a GAN-worthy article. The first round of the review is below. Daß Wölf 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again, . This is a very thorough review. I'll make a start and hopefully have something for you in two or three days. All the best for now.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 09:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a number of changes noted below. Out of time now, but hoping to do more tomorrow.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 13:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First round

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Daß Wölf 23:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should generally not contain information that isn't in the body. Do RS comment on the Oscar-winning cast? That would be a nice mention under the list in the Cast section. Agreed. Moved the award info to the cast section and sourced each one.
 * The second Kim Newman reference in the lead is unnecessary, as it's a summary of the Plot section, which doesn't need citations. Agreed. Added the reference to a sentence in the narrative.
 * Similarly, the citations in the lead's 2nd para shouldn't be there. In case the same claims are made in the body, the citations can be moved there. If not, then the text should be moved/copied to the body, since the lead shouldn't substantially introduce information that isn't in the body. Agreed. Moved the whole lot into the narrative and left a summary in the lead.
 * Broadness and NPOV
 * This might take some effort to rectify -- the article is a little meagre for a moderately influential 1950s Hollywood film. Looking at the WP:MOSFILM structure for inspiration, I wouldn't be surprised if there's nothing else of substance to be said about the film's marketing or release, but I would definitely expect that at least some sentences can be written the themes. I see some discussion in e.g. the the Streamas paper listed in Bibliography& or the Densho Encyclopedia entry under External links. Themes section included. Could you look at this, please, and see if if you think more content is needed?
 * Similarly, I see you've removed a section about the film's novelisation. The blurb and cover art description are obviously OR and unnecessarily detail, but the a published novelisation should definitely be mention article (quick search for pen name yields an NYT article mentioning the novel; it's also mentioned in the Streamas paper). Ditto for any soundtracks, TV pilots etc. you might've come across. Mentioned the novel with those two references. Not seen anything about other representations, though.
 * Images
 * Images are listed as PD and on the Commons, so that aspect seems fine. I've checked the copyright renewal lists mentioned on the image pages and it seems copyright has indeed lapsed. Thanks.
 * Plot
 * Some of the paragraphs in the Plot section are pretty short and could be merged or rearranged. Done. It's now five paragraphs.
 * "Macreedy tells Smith that he knows Smith has killed Komoko and involved others." This sounds a little vague. Perhaps "killed Komoko with the help of others"? Done.
 * "In the hotel lobby, Hastings arrives..." -- suggest "Hastings arrives in the hotel lobby and...". Does this immediately follow the fight in the previous para? Amended.
 * "When Horn tries" -- if it's just a few words, it would be more natural to describe what Horn does here, e.g. "Horn stands up, but..." Amended.
 * Sources
 * Streamas (2003) is listed under Bibliography but not referenced in citations. Are there any footnotes missing? Now referenced. I've included items by Streamas in the Themes and Production section.
 * The Bosley Crowther quote is excessive. The text is not necessarily unduly long but at this length it needs to be paraphrased. Agreed. I reduced it to his salient point about the direction.
 * Spot check -- I can't find some of the claims in the 3rd para of Production in the source cited at the end of the para: replaced opening sequence, $9 as price of ticket. Removed all. I think this was a completely unreliable source. It kept on about the film being an Oscar winner when it didn't win any.


 * Thanks for making the changes. I've placed the article on hold for now pending the unresolved comments (just ignore the "up to 7 days" part). Please ping me when you're done and/or reply here. Daß Wölf 03:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, . I've addressed the remaining concerns but I'm not sure how much coverage you would prefer in the new Themes section. Could you please take a look and let me know. Thanks again and all the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 19:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there could probably be more, but this satisfies the WP:WIAGA broadness criterion so I'm going to ✅ the article. All the best to you too, and thanks for the prompt responses and the good work you've put in on the article! Daß Wölf 04:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much,. Your review was very thorough and I'm glad we have been able to work together to improve the article. Best wishes.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 06:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)