Talk:Déjà Vu (2006 film)/GA1

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

I will be preforming the GA review of this article, a process that may take up to seven days. During my review, I may make edits to the article. If you have any questions about these edits, or about the review process, please feel free to leave messages here. Million_Moments (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested
I am requesting a second opinion on this article. In general it is very good. My main issue is I am concerned with the alternative timelines section being original research that has been commented on by the writers. The references appear to be from a forum, where the writers have commented on what somebody else has written as the timeline. This timeline appears to have been originally written on wikipedia, and might well have changed from the version originally read by the writers of the film. This is a pretty unique situation, and I really think some other opinions are needed.

In other issues with ther article, I am unable to read any of the graphical timeline at full resolution. Image:Jerry Bruckheimer filming Deja Vu.jpg does not contitute fair use, because it does not siginificantly increase the readers understanding of the topic - it is only illustrative and thus should be removed.
 * Done Okay; the filming picture has been removed. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to leave any questions or comments here. Million_Moments (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm for the removal of the timelines section. Discussing the multiple timeline-based theory is valid, but explaining it in such detail is OR.--Remurmur (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Timelines section options
Further to asking for a second opinion I have aslo asked at No original research/noticeboard. There has not been much responce, the one comment I got confirmed that the timelines section is original research but with references for after it's creation. However forums are not usually accepted as reliable references, I was willing to look past this due to the website being run by the writers of the movie and being considered notable enough to have it's own wikipedia page but it is still a valid point.

I do not feel I can pass the article with the timelines section in it. If this section were to be removed, I would be quite happy to pass the article. I can see two choices, the removal of the section and the passing of the article or editors of the article may chose not to remove the section, in which case I would fail the article. You could however appeal against this at WP:GAR where the article would be reviewed by more members of the community. Please let me know your thoughts. Million_Moments (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the timelines section seems like original research. On Wikipedia, we are permitted to describe primary sources, to a point.  WP:PSTS says, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."  I think that the timelines section drifts too far from "descriptive claims" and is more like an interpretation.  If information about the timelines can be supported by reliable sources, I would be okay with this.  Speaking of reliable sources, is it possible to phase out IMDb?  I do not think it is reliable, being based on user submissions.  If the information is worth noting, it would be reported elsewhere. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be possible to replace IMDb references, seeing how inaccurate it can be. However, is there some way we can simply reformat what is present on terms of the timeline theory, rather than shoot for its outright removal? Surely there is some other solution. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 19:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three arguments for removal at this time (as well as the reply at the no original research noticeboard) and nobody has been able to think of an alternative solution. If you can find references for the section from other sources maybe it can be kept. This is a very unique situation, as there is no doubt that it is original research and was put on wikipedia as such because that is what it's own reference states, but the section does have references from after it's publication that provide it with some credibility. I think this may come under WP:SELFPUB and, as the policy states, since the information is not also published in "reliable third-party publications" it does make the information reliable. Million_Moments (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Further look at the forum replies: "But I do believe the story facts fit your interpretation; in other words, there's nothing in the story that disproves your interpretation." The author is saying that yes the movie fits in with the facts, but he is not saying directly that the movie was written with the knowledge of these timelines. He also says "My only quibble is whether you require 4 timelines or only 3" and since four timelines are included in this article, I would say that this is a pretty major issue with the reference. Million_Moments (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

On hold
I have placed the article on hold as comments indicate that the alternative timelines section requires removal. Please remove this section, or leave me a comment or message here stating otherwise Million_Moments (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should have stated that this article will only be placed on hold for seven days. If no improvements are made soon it will be failed without notice. Million_Moments (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really need a desicion on this or I will be forced to fail to article. Million_Moments (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the trouble, I haven't been truly active until today. I'll remove the section, but I don't know how the person who fought for it to stay there will react. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass
I am happy to say this article now passes the GA criteria. I know the removal of the alternative timelines section was difficult, but if reliable third party references can be found this section can be added back. Overall I think this article is very well written, and contains alot of relavant information about the production and reception of the movie that many film articles lack. Future improvements might include a slight expansion of the critical reception section, as all the quotes are from US sources. Was the film recieved in the same way worldwide?

If you feel this review has been in error, it can be raised at WP:GAR. Thank you for all your hardwork and congratulations! Million_Moments (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Timelines are part of the movie
You are so obsessed with the letter of the rules that you ignore common sense and the facts (ironically you do this despite the existence of a wikipedia rule about common sense and about ignoring rules if they go against the spirit of the rules, against the goals of wikipedia, or if they produce an inferior work). So we are left with your mandate to remove plot points crucial to the movie and greater misunderstanding being spread by wikipedia. Good job. You are spreading misinformation under the guise of providing better information for the masses.

Now consider this. Say in a movie character A gets into a car. The next shot has said character suddenly driving away but there is no scene of him physically starting the engine. Well did he start the engine? 64.145.175.190 (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)