Talk:Fuck (2005 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to review this one, as it overlaps nicely with the work I've been doing at First Amendment to the US Constitution. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments-- breaking this list off early, as Mrs. Khazar just got home...
 * The lead seems overdetailed to me; information like what trailers were on the DVD, the cities where the movie initially screened, the list of writers who previously used "fuck", etc. all seem like more information than is needed. I think it would sufficient for the lead simply to say that the movie traces the word "fuck" through history, for example, without giving 4 sentences of that history. I also think that it would more helpful to give a one sentence summary of common praise/common crticism of the movie rather than the math breakdown of Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic, but that's not as big a deal.
 * "Pat Boone tries to argue for less usage of the word in society" -- seems a little POV to say that he "tries to argue" instead of just "argues" -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing the GA Review, I agree that it dovetails very well with your quality improvement efforts at First Amendment to the United States Constitution. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to initial comments from Khazar2
 * The initial comments are some very good recommendations, I've implemented all of them:
 * 1) Removed detailed info from lede on what trailers were on the DVD.
 * 2) Removed info from intro on what cities the movie initially screened.
 * 3) Removed the list of writers who previously used "fuck" from the lede.
 * 4) Removed the 4 sentences of history from the lede. Note that the first sentence already states the documentary gives info from a historical perspective.
 * 5) Added a bit of summary of some of the common themes from praise/criticism to the intro.
 * 6) Removed math breakdown of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic from lede.
 * 7) Changed "tries to argue" to "argues".
 * Thanks! I'm hoping to get through the second half later tonight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds great. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * More
 * "To illustrate key concepts it utilizes selected" -- it's ambiguous here if "it" refers to "the animation" or " the film"
 * " The Nantucket Independent characterized it as a documentary, "Addressing free speech and censorship"" -- its listing in a Nantucket newspaper is probably trivial enough to omit.
 * " the iconic speech, "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television"" -- the use of "iconic"--which appears several times--is just slightly POV. This speech is, of course, iconic, but at the same time I wonder if this is a judgement that needs to be put in the "voice" of a commentator. Alternatively, and this is probably best, the word "iconic" could simply be cut; its influence is obvious by the fact that it has its own wiki article.
 * Is Fairman's article titled "FUCK" or "Fuck"? It's FUCK in the quote and Fuck in the text.
 * "The film was recommended as a resource to students by Dr. Richard Stepp in his Fall 2007 course "Ethnographic and Documentary Film" at the University of Florida." -- this seems extremely trivial; the journal article in the final paragraph already establishes that some in the academic community are using this, anyway.
 * Since I suspect you're likely to take this to FA when we're done here (and you should), I've been a bit more aggressive in copyediting and offering prose tweaks than I usually would in a GA. Please treat these all only as suggestions, however, and feel free to revert wherever you like. Few of the edits I made are strictly necessary to pass the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall, this article seems excellent so far. It's well researched, well sourced, and readable in a way that Wikipedia articles too often aren't. It's clearly ripe for promotion, though I still have some checks left to do (copyright, image, etc.) Let me see how much of that I can get through before bed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this helpful 2nd pass through the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to 2nd set of comments from Khazar2
 * 1) Clarified that this refers to the film.
 * 2) Removed the description by The Nantucket Independent.
 * 3) Removed the word, "iconic", from the article.
 * 4) Minor stylistic point, his title is "Fuck", changed the CAPS use for uniformity and article standardization, to avoid future confusion.
 * 5) University of Florida - removed this reference from the article.
 * 6) I went through the copyedits, they all look quite good, I have no objections to any of them. :)