Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA3

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Willing to work with you to get it into shape. I guess just preemptively, I firmly believe that naming all of the references in the film is very important to this film and on the same level as the cast list or the plot outline. There are some critics who talk about these references and their importance in the film, a few are referenced in the article. I could add more quotes or references from critics and film theorists to back that up if needed. Basically, this is more of an experimental film than a narrative (although technically its both), so I really don't think its trivial to list the references made in the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm going to have to first read over: (1) the Peer review (2) the first Good Article review and (3) the 2nd Good Article review -- and see if all of the recommendations raised in those prior three forms of review have since been successfully addressed by changes made to the article before it was again nominated for a 3rd review here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't understand one reviewers request for the Quote Boxes, so I'd need help with that if it really is necessary. I'm skeptical about not being able to list a cast member without having the character they played, but if its necessary I can add "uncredited" (although its technically original research). Some of it has been trimmed, but if necessary more can be trimmed. I don't really think that the top ten list is too long, but it can be trimmed if needed. Otherwise the previous reviewer made mistakes, and I've already mentioned my desire to discuss the importance of the "References to other works" section in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I can't find it, but there was a "Did you know?" review as well if you wanted to read over that and know where to look for it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Here it is: Template:Did you know nominations/Goodbye to Language. And technically the 2nd GA assessment wasn't really an assessment, it was more my mistake in attempting to get a second opinion on the first assessment and not knowing exactly where to make that request.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now the 3rd review total for the article, will stay standing in the history, as the 2nd GA Review. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Also, I was very annoyed after the first assessment because at that time the GA nominations were clogged up and it took five months for the assessment to take place, after which the nomination was quickly closed before I could address any of the issues or politely point out some mistakes in the review. Thank you for your prompt review and I assure you I have every intention of being civil here.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, good to hear! My pleasure! I'll do my best to do a point-by-point review based on all of the WP:Good article criteria, so either way it turns out, hopefully you'll have some good ideas on how to further work on Quality improvement for the article in the future. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment
Next, on to Image review. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Article edit history upon inspection shows stability going back at least 3 months. No issues here.
 * 2) Article talk page history shows similar stability upon inspection. No issues here.

Image review
One image needs to be addressed, as noted, above. Please explain, below. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * File:Adieu au Langage poster.png - Great job on fair use rationale here, nicely done.
 * File:Nyon street on the shore of lake Geneve.jpg - image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image review there upon my assessment checks out okay.
 * File:Jacquesellul.jpg - not detailed enough fair use rationale. Zero fair use rationale given for this article itself. Compare with that for the image poster, above, and how much more detailed that one is. Also -- it could be possible to attempt to contact this person's representatives to obtain a free-use photo, perhaps? ❌.
 * I substituted the third image with a different image of Ellul that the copyright holder uploaded. Would that be enough or should I add fair use info to the image's page in Commons?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no, that's not how Commons works. All images on Commons must be free-use licensed, per commons:COM:L. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Was about to write that I didn't explain the new image well enough, but I see that you've already found and cropped it. I was thinking that because the copyright holder uploaded it as a Creative Commons image that it would be ok to use in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, that's fine. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking of adding a fourth image: one of the illustrated depictions of parallax available in Commons. Do you think that would be helpful to the article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems a bit tangential. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not GA at this time

 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Recommendations before going for another 4th GA Review
Quite sorry to say that, unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time.

I sincerely hope that the recommendations from the GA Review, above, will be helpful to editors in the future to further work on the Quality improvement process.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:


 * 1) Go over every single point raised from all four (4) prior reviews -- the Peer review, 1st GA Review, 2nd GA Review, and now 3rd GA Review. Do your best to address all of them. Make a noted numbered list in a new section on the article's talk page explaining how you have attempted to do so for each recommendation from all the prior reviews.
 * 2) Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
 * 3) Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
 * 4) Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality.
 * 5) While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
 * 6) While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)