Talk:Chronicle of a Disappearance/GA2

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

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas


 * Well-written:
 * the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * There should be a space in the sentence "The Austin Chronicleand" section.
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Per Words_to_avoid, you'll have to change the phrase "However, The New York Times called it "quite remote""
 * Per WP:CONTRACTION, do not use contractions such as "don't"
 * The article doesn't seem to follow WP:MOSFILM. It could use the following work:
 * The original-language film title of the film should be included.
 * Refer to the film as a "film" in the article, not as a movie.
 * The titles of awards should not be written in quotations.
 * The plot and production section should be separated. I think an expansion on the production section would be good.
 * If it is one of the first Palestinian films to be released in the US, some more information of it's release date would be good. That would need to be cited in the infobox.
 * Per WP:OVERLINK, the director's name is linked far too much over and over. Especially in the infobox. Try linking him only once per section.
 * When citing the sources for these articles, be sure to credit the authors last name, and then their first. Examine template:cite web for examples.
 * Per Lead section, the lead could be expanded to explain more of the information contained within the article.
 * The imdb link to the director does not seem to be working properly.

Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * WP:Film does not consider IMDb as legitimate source as the information provided to the site is entered in by users rather then film experts, scholars or critics. Try to find other sources for those articles.
 * You might want to have that link that cites Allmovie actually going to the allmovie site, instead of the Answers.com back-up, which also mirrors the wikipedia article.
 * it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * There could be more information on the film's production. Outside the cast being family members and it being the director's first film, there is not much else here noted.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * It would be good to add the ALT tag for the image. Please see the update Template:Infobox_film for examples.
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This article needs a lot of work done it as is not quite ready for GA yet. I'll give it a week to see how it comes along. Good luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that all of the issues are now resolved. The only exception is the reference to All Movie Guide. It is not possible to cite the material to their website, as they have removed the material that once was there. It appears that the only possible option is to cite them through Answers.com The Squicks (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job! I'm still a bit iffy on if this should be accepted as a Good Article however. My only issue is the length. I know this is a film with out much print information about it out there, but I'm not sure if it's considered long enough for a GA status. I'll give it another look over and If I'm still not sure I'll ask for a second opinion at WP:Good. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have no problem whatsoever with bringing in a second opinion, but I trust your best judgment on this- regardless- given your prominent experience. The Squicks (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion
I'm requesting a second opinion on this article. My main concerns is that I haven't seen the film, and I am not sure if the plot can be explained in a more concises or specific way. The production section seems to be half a small bio on the director and some of it seems trivial information that is discussed in the infobox (such as the languages). I know this is an esoteric film with not much information about it available, so I'm not sure if it should be passed on this ground yet. It's come a long way however from it's begining! Great work so far Squicks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The plot section looks great; I see nothing wrong there. The Production section seems to read more like a commentary on the film's conception rather than production. Is there any information available on things like filming, acting, costumes, editing, etc?--Edge3 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit more information might be nice, but- as is- the article seems to me to clearly be a GA at this stage. I don't see anything that could be seen as a problem. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A cast section would be nice to expand this article a bit more as there isn't much on the production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Information on when it was released in theaters and home video would be good as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrze above that at least some mentions of release and home video are necessary, even if whole sections aren't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As the original nominator has left, I'm not going to pass the article. It still needs a cast section and I still think the production could be expanded upon. I'll see if I can do anywork to this article. I hope The Squicks comes back as this article is very close to being GA. So close! Come back Squicks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)