Talk:On the Art of the Cinema/GA2

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am about to start the review, full disclosure I am aWiki Cup and a GA Cup participant. If anyone would like to reciprocate I have my own GAN (Mexican National Trios Championship) needing a review and a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my GA review. I usually provide my feedback in portions over a day or so, so don't be surprised if I keep popping in with stuff for a while.  MPJ  -US 03:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I try to always start out by hitting the GA Toolbox provided to us, often it finds issues that can be addressed quickly.

✅ nothing that is worth mentioning, I believe the weasel phrase that is called out is sourced and will be included in the general review
 * Peer review


 * Copyvio detector
 * Shows possible violation at 45.1% to one website, but that's a direct, attributable quote so I don't think there is a concern there. Everything else is listed as "unlikely" so I am good here ✅

((aye}} no problems
 * Disambig links


 * External links
 * Source 30 - Probably dead
 * Source 31 - Probably dead
 * Source 25 - Connection Issue
 * Comment: Working archive links already provided to all three. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad someone is on the ball, too bad that someone wasn't me. No problems here ✅  MPJ  -US 12:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So the first sentence states that this book “has become essential”, yet later on it lists that the impact is disputed? Leaving the “essential” statement by itself and not listing the dispute until later makes it initially seem like it’s a universal fact. Those two opposite statements should be together to paint a complete, balanced picture in the lead. And really should we not clarify that it's "essential" in North Korea - where he was a dictator, without a qualifier it's like saying "Mein Kampf" became essential. Not giving the whole picture.
 * Can you be more specific about where you spotted this problem? No sentence says that the book "has become essential" (in verbatim). There is a phrase: "The seed theory has become essential to North Korean film theory", and this checks out when compared with the section on seed theory. I think you are confusing two things (which is my fault, since I've written a confusing text): The seed theory is influential in North Korean film theory. But the book as a whole might not have been very influential in North Korean film industry. Do I have to rephrase something in the article to avoid this confusion, ? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the lead originally had that phrase, the current version of the lead is fine the way it is. MPJ  -US 20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ”original theories, that” => “original theories, which”
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ”centers around” => “centers on”
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ”It has called a” => ”It has been called a”
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "whether or not Gap Ryong participates in the revolutionary movement, he dies" – I am not sure what this sentence is supposed to convey?
 * ✔️ I've amended this to read: (If you still find this confusing, I have other options to use as example here). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, much better wording. MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ”the book is considered the highest authority on cinema” – This is a weasel phrase the way it stands right now. Not attributed to a source at this point in time, not identifying who considers it an authority? That statement really needs to be put in context to be encyclopedic.
 * If you are referring to the image caption, it repeats what the adjacent section says in these words: "The work is considered the most authoritative guide on filmmaking in North Korea." This is attributed to Kwak, who in the original source says: "On the Art of the Cinema that was written by Kim Jong-il has been widely recognized as the highest guidelines [for] the process of making films in North Korea." Should I put in there to attribute this statement to what is a general consensus among scholars? Other sources tend to put this more poetically, calling it "the bible of" North Korean cinema. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it was in the caption, which has no attributation to Kwak as far as I can tell. But specifying "in North Korea" in the caption it goes from being a universal claim to the very specific claim that the source backs up. MPJ  -US 20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've added . Does this suffice or do you want me to duplicate the reference in the caption? What about the point I raised above: should I write that it's considered authoritative? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * “sloppy practices” is a judgment statement, what is sloppy to one person may not be to someone else and should not be presented as a fact, can we get some facts on what those practices were?
 * ✔️ This paragraphs recounts Schönherr's analysis of the book and its impact, so any judgement statement is presented as a due account of a significant viewpoint. I think the right thing to do here is to attribute it directly by quotation to avoid presenting an opinion as fact. I've verified from source the exact words Schönherr uses and amended the article to read: . There are other options I have in mind if you are not satisfied with this. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"""I think that works, it's clear that the statement is backed up by the source. MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why or how did Kim consider it a failure?
 * ✔️ Amended to say: – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Much better.  MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Who is Shin Sang-ok and why is his kidnapping tied to this? The article neglects to give the proper context so that someone who does not know the details already is not sure exactly what this is about.
 * So he kidnaps Shin, then Shin studied the book and does stuff to please Kim? There is a part of the story missing that could be elaborated on please.
 * ✔️ If there is a story to be told in North Korean cinema, it's this one. Unfortunately for us, for most sources on the subject this is the only story that is told. I've tried to keep this to minimum in this article, but you are right, some context is needed. I elaborated: There is so much more on this, but I think this suffices to establish both context and the link with the book. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect, just enough context for it all to make more sense. MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ”By authoring the work, Kim Jong-il gained social and political power, and secured Kim Il-sung's confidence, making the former's assuming of leadership of the country possible.” – This seems overly complex and really could benefit from being rewritten, possibly as two sentences instead of one long one.
 * ✔️ Amended: – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Works for me. MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The “On Acrobatics” does not have a year listed, the rest do.
 * I've exhausted every means to research this (library catalog searches, search in North Korean sources both online and in print, etc.) to no avail. The definite way to access it is in Selected Works of Kim Jong-il that currently run into volume 24, in Korean, and as you can imagine these are not easy to come by. We have two options here and I wish input from you:
 * Leave it as it is, or ✔️
 * Leave the entry On Acrobatics out entirely. I'm leaning toward this option, because this is not presented as a comprehensive list in any case. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave it in with no date, you can source he wrote it, just not when - half the info is better than no info. MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ”The Red Chapel continuously consults the treatise”, I assume that should be past tense, unless he still consults it even after the movie was finished?
 * this is describing things that happen on-screen in a documentary. Per MOS:TENSE, this should in in present tense. Right? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh it was part of the actual documentary, not him consulting the treatsie as he was filiming it? I totally did not read it that way, but yes if that was shown as part of the documentary the tense is correct.  MPJ  -US 23:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ I clarified this to read: . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am good with this change.

Just another round of input.  MPJ  -US 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Caption of the status should start with "A bronze"
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Caption should read "a camera"
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "make-up and" = "make-up, and"
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "The hero of the story in particular embodies Chajusŏng." should be "The hero of the story, in particular, embodies Chajusŏng."
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "cancelling" should be "canceling"
 * ✔️ Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of additional comments that I noticed on the final read through, nothing major. I believe that is my complete review of the current version. Once these are addressed I'll give it another read through. So I am putting this on hold for up to 7 days to give you time to address all the comments.  MPJ  -US 11:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of great updates, there are only a few things left to do and you're definitely going in the right direction.  MPJ  -US 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'll work out the remaining problems. There is a bit of a tension in sources. Some say this is "the most important" book on cinema. Others take up this proposition and critically analyze it. I need to strike the right balance here, and be careful not to weasel it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - looking at the feedback from you and what I've checked I believe there is only one issue left, specifying "North Korea" in the caption. All other concerns have been addressed one way or another.  MPJ  -US 20:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave it one last read through with the changes made, I am satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. pass, great work.  MPJ  -US 01:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, and congratulations on great work on your part as well. This nomination was not only given recognition but was also made several improvements to, thanks to your comments. I am confident that your review was well-conducted and accurate and that, consequentially, the outcome was the right one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)