Talk:Loveless (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Article assessment may take a day or two to start. Is this the only film by this director which you are interested in or are there others by him as well. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when you would be ready to start. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Second ping. You appear to be editing other pages but not here. Your "ready to go" signal is needed, or the article may be seen unready for GAN. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sunday is probably when I'll have the most time to start editing substantially (but usually when I'm conducting reviews I don't wait for go signals). Thanks, Ribbet32 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, Leviathan is good, I made a few minor edits to that article but I wouldn't be inspired to give it the same kind of expansion Ribbet32 (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Review comments for assessing well-written criterion

 * Previous table of contents as edited by GOCE looked better to me. Could you go back to the table of contents as done in the good editing done for you by GOCE? JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * GOCE editor Baffle gab1978 did not make any changes to the TOC.
 * TOC by Baffle has a section on Analysis at the bottom, your version does not. The version as edited by GOCE looks better. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding your lede, your footnote for 'tragedy film' is interesting. My own feeling is that it does not look like either like a Greek tragedy or a Shakespeare Tragedy when you watch the film. The feeling is much more of a domestic drama film in the type one would find in Henrik Ibsen, or possibly in Strindberg. Can 'tragedy film' be considered for separate options. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a mention of Strindberg below, but anything more would breach WP:NOR.
 * "Tragedy" looks like not the best choice of the options your list in your footnote. No one is asking for original research here, only a better description of film genre from the list in your footnote. If you feel this is a controversy among reliable sources, then develop this controversy among critics in the article. After you develop your controversy in the article using your reliable sources, then make your choice of what is best for the article and remove the footnote from the lede. The lede is supposed to be without footnotes for GAN. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It was more than only 'disapproval' by Russians, the Russians gave no money for the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not true, the Russian government paid for 35% of Leviathan
 * Leviathan did have partial financial support, but Loveless did not have government support. Is that your point? JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure that you gain anything by including the original language transliteration with footnote later in the lede. You already have it in the opening sentence as the original title. This sentence looks better as 2 separate sentences with a period after '...into the film.' JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweaked for flow. But as the explanatory note explains, lovelessness and nelyubov are not the same thing. The themes are different from the transliteration of the Russian title Нелюбовь.
 * The footnote does not belong in the lede here. The use of the Russian looks a little pedantic for non-Russian speakers who are more than aware of the difference between nye-lyubov and bez-lyubvy, etc. The footnote should be removed and you can do a study of cognate forms in the article if you like, though it should not be in the lead. It is duplicated from the very first sentence of the lede. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Plot section, 'In Leningrad' or ' in a suburb of Leningrad' looks like it would read better in the Plot section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "in Leningrad" or a "suburb of" would be incorrect. The city of Leningrad isn't called that anymore, it's Saint Petersburg. "Leningrad Region" is used in the film.
 * If it is in Petersburgh then say so here. Leningrad Oblast is very vague, something like saying 'somewhere in the state of Alaska' in English, its very vague sounding. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph reads better as "After returning home late one evening, Zhenya realizes that Alyosha...". JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarified this; however, it is clearly the next day, daylight, when she realizes he is missing.
 * Clarification is better, though basically "After returning home from a late night out, Zhenya realizes that...". JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure 'abandons her' is correct here, since they interact again and again as the film continues. "Discharges her on the roadway in anger" or something similar. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweaked
 * Try ending Plot with "...remains as a surviving remnant." JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK Ribbet32 (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That is the first two sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Conclusions for assessment results
This article has been researched extensively by the nominating editor with fairly consistent results. The research is reflected in a fine bibliography with nearly a hundred citations many of which are fully linked. There are a number of optional edits which I have marked into the assessment outline above which might be taken with some seriousness. The recent GOCE outline is my preference for the article, though the nominating editor appears to have questions about this. Also, the footnotes in the lede section are generally not preferred for GAN articles. Otherwise, the article covers all basic facts required of a peer reviewed film article. The writing does not appear to contain original research and the images all check out. The recent GOCE TOC outline would be nicer in the article if plans are made to further improve it towards a featured article. This film article is now at peer review quality and is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)