Talk:Lost in Translation (film)/GA1

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
Hi, Rawlangs. As you know, I did not nominate this article, but I noticed that you mentioned me. To answer your question: I have spent the last month or so diligently researching this film with the intent of nominating the article for featured status in about two months. So far, I've read most of its scholarly material, the book that's been written about it, and the production literature. In short, I'm compiling every reliable source on it that's been published. While I have no prejudice against this GAN, I have intentionally avoided nominating the article myself because I do not believe it meets the criteria (like #3A). The article, as it stands, leaves out a tremendous amount of thematic information (as you mentioned), and I am not sure it even mentions the allegations of racism, of which a number of notable critics have made. IMO, it's not close to the 'broad' criterion (which, of course, I understand is different from 'comprehensive'). There are also some nuggets of OR scattered throughout. In part, this is why I made the decision to IAR the nomination last week, but more importantly it was because I did not want anyone to use their time evaluating it and tweaking since it will be re-written with brand new material in less than two months. Of course, I don't own anything here, but in light of the upcoming stability concern and the major holes, I would be tempted to hold off on it. Strictly personally, I don't plan on working on the article this week (and I couldn't even if I wanted to, because I don't have enough information yet in my notes to get it up to #3A in time), but I'll ride with the flow. Best, NTox · talk 07:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. As you know, the stability concern refers to changes from ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Unless you expect your edits to be strongly controversial, I don't think they can affect the current GA nomination. If there are instances of OR I haven't listed, I would be very interested in having them listed here.
 * The article does (briefly) touch on issues of racism, but only through a single citation. If there is important information missing, I would focus on incorporating those edits first and working them into the lead section. Controversies are extremely important to include as their exclusion or suppression from an article significantly biases it.
 * You put me in a bit of a tricky situation. If you tell me that some important points are not addressed in the article, I can't really pass 3A. However, if you are merely intending on expanding elements already present in the themes and critical response sections, the article will have addressed the main points after minor expansion of the themes section, and can pass 3A.
 * In my experience, articles rarely pass GA without improvements. Editors can use GAN to target the most important edits in an article, and I feel like that's what Rusted AutoParts is doing here. In GAN, reviewers typically assume that edits and citations are made in good faith. As a result, I am not required to read every source, or thoroughly research the topic myself. My role (with minor exceptions) is to improve the mechanics, organization, and scope of the text in front of me. If the article appears to be complete, I can assume that it is. FA status requires a peer review, which involves many more members of the community and is much more thorough. Each stepping stone is supposed to incrementally improve the article. Thus, if this GA nomination results in substantive improvements to the page, it's done its job. Typically, articles that hit FA go through GAN first.
 * After this GA review, please let me know if I can be of any help improving the page. When I'm not bound by the rules of GA, I tend to be a bit more dynamic in my suggestions. I will also be more free to make major edits. Thanks for your prompt and on-point feedback! --Rawlangs (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Note I have put the status of this review on hold as that seems to be the intention. Glimmer721 <sup style="color:blue;">talk  02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional Notes
Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)