Talk:Every Sunday

GA Quick-Fail
I am quick failing the article, as the "Plot" section needs to be expanded, and has zero references. The lead is also too short, as per the guidlines at WP:LEAD. Feel free to renominate when thee problems are solved. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressing each concern:
 * Plot summary too short - this is a short film, 11 minutes long. Its plot is not complicated. I could certainly lard the plot description with such irrelevant details as "Edna calls on all of the Browns and Joneses in the local phone book while Judy takes the Smiths" but that level of detail a) implicates the summary as a derivative work for copyright purposes and b) adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of the film.
 * Plot summary is unreferenced - per WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film."
 * Lead is too short - The lead is two paragraphs which is appropriate per Lead_section and it appears to me that it adequately summarizes the article. Is there some portion of the article that isn't adequately summarized in the lead? Otto4711 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
I am afraid I am going to have to fail this article. For starters, the lead section is not detailed enough (even though, per WP:LEAD, it is long enough). The prose in the article is somewhat confusing to interpret at some points. Consider separating any sentences that look even just a little bit too extended. Remember that readers usually process concepts by clause, so if the sentence is not separated into separate clauses or even separate sentences (since too many clauses can be confusing too), then the reader gets confused. For instance, the sentence I just wrote is probably too long. The plot section is especially confusing. The overview is too brief. It gives no sense of setting and, as said above, the prose is a little confusing. In addition, you might want to include some sort of citation referring to the film per WP:V. The purpose of this is not have an official citation so nobody will question the credibility whatsoever. (Trust me, there are people who will look at the article and not think of the film as the source.) Moving on to the production section, there is one sentence in particular that I am not sure of (though my assumption is probably incorrect so I did not include it in my decision about the nomination). "...feelings among studio executives were that the studio didn't need two girl singers." Now I am not an enthusiast or expert with this topic, but in my opinion that sentence sounds opinion-like and is likely to be challenged. I am not sure whether or not it will be challenged or whether or not the source at the end of the paragraph is meant to include that sentence, but I just wanted to mention it. As for the next paragraph, the two sentences seem to be lacking details. Just to clear things up, they do not need more details, but putting in some details in that specific paragraph is an opportunity to expand the article without making it confusing as details sometimes tend to do. In the third paragraph, again: the first sentence seems opinion-like and likely to be challenged. In the last sentence, it might be useful to include a date for when she was signed. In addition, it might be helpful to attach an adjective to the word "studio" near the end of the sentence to separate any possible confusion between MGM and Universal (studios, that is). In the next section, the first clause of the first sentence is slightly confusing. Consider separating "short" and "second feature" into two separate clauses, or maybe put one in parentheses. For the references, they all seem to be reliable, but almost all of the sources are just biographies or related content made specifically for Judy Garland. It would be better if a source relating to Durbin was inserted, just to vary the sources, but it is not necessary, though. One main problem, though, is that some of the references are in Author, Page Number form. With this form there are two choices: 1) Convert all the references to that form, put the footnotes under a "Notes" section, and make a bibliography or 2)Change all the references to standard full citation form. Finally, the sole link in the "External links" section is unnecessary as it is included in the infobox. As for the article in general, it needs to be expanded. I understand it is a short film but the article is just too short for such a topic. As stated above, maybe adding more details about setting (place and time) to the plot section and maybe finding some more sources and including brand new information. One more comment, you might want to replace that image, it is too low a resolution. If no replacement can be found, I suggest removing it. It does not do much for the article. I am going to list below what an automated peer-reviewer bot suggests for the the article, just in case it might help.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * correctly
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

I hope that the article will someday improve to the point where it can pass. If you have any qyestions about the review, feel free to contact me via my talk page. As a final comment, I want to congratulate you because even though this is not yet GA, the article is pretty good considering only one author has contributed to the article. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a copy of my explanation to the review from the GA reassessment page.
 * Let me just explain some things that you questioned about my review. I apologize for the confusion as when I write on talk pages I tend to write colloquially and it gets very confusing. Addressing your concern about the article's failing due to length, it is not the length that I failed it for. An article cannot be failed for length if it cannot be expanded, but if it can be expanded, then it fails criteria 4a by not providing sufficient coverage of the topic. If you can prove that there are absolutely NO more possible details or sub-topics that can be included, then that aspect of my review will become invalid. For your next comment about the lead's details: that was not a major item that I focused on. I was mainly concerned with the topic sentence since it starts to give context on what the plot was ("...tells the story of two young girls and their efforts to save a public concert series."), but then cuts short. All it provides is that there are two girls and a concert series. The minimum that would need to be added would be maybe be this: "...to save a public concert series, which had been degrading due to low attendance." As for the prose, there are some parts that are confusing. I explained as much as I could in the review but I will try to provide some examples. Here is one from the plot section: "Edna (Deanna Durbin) and her friend Judy (Judy Garland) are upset because Edna's grandfather and his orchestra have been fired by the town council from the free Sunday concerts they play because of poor attendance." I separated all the different clauses by bolding every other clause. This sentence is way too long. Maybe some advanced readers like you and me may read this sentence and say, "This is good." But inexperienced users that may visit the article might find themselves looking back to remember what the main topic of the sentence is. As for the exteremely confusing sentence I put in the review, that was a fault in my prose. What I meant to say was that the sentences do not necessarily need details, but they should have more details. Finally, as for the reference section, you can choose whichever style you want, but if you choose the "Author, Page Number" style, you must list what the references are in a separate Bibliography or References section. For instance, as per the example you gave (Casablanca (film)), the article uses the "Author, Page Number" style in their footnotes. If you look below the Notes section, though, you will see that any reference that was cited using that style was listed in full form in a separate "References" section. If you have any more questions, please ask and I will be happy to answer them. This page should also get comments from other authors if you want to see what they think. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, now that we're back to this point and in light of the GAR comments and the changes that have been made to the article, are there at this point specific critiques that you believe need to be addressed per the GA requirements? Please be as specific as possible, to the point of quoting specific sentences that you find problematic. Otto4711 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. No action was taken, as the article was renominated. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 11:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GAN Passed
Ok, I am satisfied now, and I am sure you are very impatient with the review so I apologize for holding the article up. I believe it is of "good" quality now. Good luck! Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)