Talk:Little Secrets (2001 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 09:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

✅
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lede
 * Only notable names (i.e., those with Wikipedia articles) are noted in the opening sentence (WP:FILMLEDE)
 * ✅ Removed "written by Jessica Barondes" and mentioned "writer Jessica Barondes" in the second paragraph instead.
 * "and the two teenage brothers" -> shouldn't you follow this with a parenthetical naming the actors playing them?
 * this is routine information for the lede, as technically many OSTs get added as bonus extras in home video later on.
 * ditto
 * Must be reliably sourced in its relevant section
 * I do think the review aggregator scores mentioned and sourced in the "Critical reception" section support this statement in the lede. Especially the metacritic score "indicating 'mixed or average reviews. Bennv123 (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reply: Review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should benefit from other reliable sources, such as books and periodicals reporting in retrospect how a film was received by critics. See MOS:FILMCRITICS
 * Perhaps the "to mixed reviews" claim should be removed. Retrospective sources like Magill's Cinema Annual (published by Gale) summarize what a few reviews said, but do not otherwise state any definitive critical consensus.
 * Alternatively, the best published summary of the critical consensus that I can find is this article by Jeffrey Overstreet in Christianity Today, which compiled various reviews of the film and states, "Mainstream critics are not offended and seem confident that children will enjoy the project. But they question whether its lack of realism is a detriment." But this source is a contemporary one, published while reviews of the film were still coming out. Bennv123 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the source explicitly states a "mixed" reception to the film, then that should be used. Since none of the alternatives you provided supports that, the last resort would be to get rid of the claim. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Searched high and low for a suitable source but can fine none so I've removed the claim. Bennv123 (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Plot
 * Philip does not think it is a big deal as David was not the driver and no one was legally drunk precede "as" with a comma
 * Cast and characters
 * Actors, their roles and accompanying in-universe details must all be reliably sourced, as well as properly formatted using Template:Cast listing (WP:FILMCAST). While we're at it, might I also suggest that you use the Casting section prose as real-world contexts for this section instead?
 * While we're at it, might I also suggest that you use the Casting section prose as real-world contexts for this section instead? I've consolidated the "Cast" and "Casting" sections by moving all the real-world context prose to the "Casting" section, and turning the "Cast" section into a straightforward cast list instead. I think this reorganization makes things neater, since the "Cast" section will otherwise be uneven with little to no real-world context for the supporting roles available in published sources. Do have another look through both sections and let me know if these changes are satisfactory.
 * No prob, although the cast section still needs to be sourced. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ The source does list more cast members, but to avoid the list being an indiscriminate collection of names per MOS:FILMCAST, I've only listed the named roles.
 * Production
 * "served as the producers"
 * Preference to, Both Treu and Barondes noted that there was no studio interference with the making of the film.
 * Time was of the essence for the filmmakers as the young cast was attending school and could only shoot for a few hours each day. precede "as" with a comma
 * Treu praised the director of photography Brian Sullivan for rising to the challenge and setting up the shots very quickly. Preference to, "To that effect, cinematographer Brian Sullivan set up shots rapidly."
 * which he felt made the film look more expensive than it really was preference to, "which he felt exuded a big-budget look"
 * punctuations of truncated quotes, such as "fingernails on a chalkboard,"; "very laid back."; "magical quality.", should be placed outside (MOS:LQ)
 * delink set
 * Reception
 * Use Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Metacritic film prose in relevant paragraph
 * and that
 * Overall, McClure gave Little Secrets a glowing review with particular praise for its universal theme concerning secrets and lies. precede with with a comma
 * Scheck was equally unimpressed with the adult cast save for the "always lively" Fox. ditto
 * ✅ Added comma before "save"
 * "who"
 * "picture-perfect" -> would "idyllic" be a better equivalent?
 * "Nonetheless" sounds editorial, try "even so"
 * Check to make sure every punctuations of truncated quotes is placed outside
 * delink "greeting card"
 * "glowing review" -> "positive review"
 * Reception
 * Use Template:Rotten Tomatoes prose and Template:Metacritic film prose in relevant paragraph
 * and that
 * Overall, McClure gave Little Secrets a glowing review with particular praise for its universal theme concerning secrets and lies. precede with with a comma
 * Scheck was equally unimpressed with the adult cast save for the "always lively" Fox. ditto
 * ✅ Added comma before "save"
 * "who"
 * "picture-perfect" -> would "idyllic" be a better equivalent?
 * "Nonetheless" sounds editorial, try "even so"
 * Check to make sure every punctuations of truncated quotes is placed outside
 * delink "greeting card"
 * "glowing review" -> "positive review"
 * "Nonetheless" sounds editorial, try "even so"
 * Check to make sure every punctuations of truncated quotes is placed outside
 * delink "greeting card"
 * "glowing review" -> "positive review"
 * delink "greeting card"
 * "glowing review" -> "positive review"
 * "glowing review" -> "positive review"
 * "glowing review" -> "positive review"


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Everything is now reliably sourced and no copy vio detected upon close scrutiny
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Since none of the tracks in the OST is notable, track listing lacks merit for inclusion and must therefore be removed, however reliably sourced it is (WP:FILMMUSIC)
 * ✅ With the track listing removed, and the info about the soundtrack's release already mention in the "Release" section, there doesn't seem to be a need for a separate "Music" subsection anymore. So I've moved the remaining info ("The film was scored by Utah-based composer Sam Cardon") to the "Development" section and got rid of the "Music" section.
 * remove indiscriminate information
 * remove indiscriminate information


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Hey, thanks for doing this review. I'll go through the points you brought up and try to address them. Bennv123 (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on reviewing the verifiable criterion. In the meantime, pls get rid of the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box office mojo link in External link section, as these are already used as citations in the article. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed external links accordingly.
 * I'm now comfortable with the changes. It's a pass. Good work. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for doing this review. I'll go through the points you brought up and try to address them. Bennv123 (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still working on reviewing the verifiable criterion. In the meantime, pls get rid of the Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box office mojo link in External link section, as these are already used as citations in the article. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed external links accordingly.
 * I'm now comfortable with the changes. It's a pass. Good work. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)