Talk:Out of My Intention

WP:FILMS Reassessment
This article is very close to Start class but it does need a cast section and a plot summary as dictated in the template in the banner. It's good to see the article has so many sources, but it shouldn't be too difficult to add a quick cast section and expand the plot summary a little further. Once that is done the article can be reassessed or renominated at the Assessment department and it will be reviewed again. Good work so far, it's nearly there! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has both plot and cast information, so I believe it fulfils these criteria (notwithstanding the fact that the above does not correlate with the Film grading scheme). PC78 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does indeed have plot and cast information, but there should be a plot synopsis, not just an overview. It's good to see the cited interpretation, as it does embellish the plot section, but there should be a plot summary as stated in MOSFILM. Are these the only two characters in the film? The cast section should detail the roles being played by the actors involved. I believe that the description within the improvement template in the banner illustrates the assessment grades in the Film grading scheme. The two templates (Stub to Start and Start to B) both were agreed on by several members and point out each element that the article should have. Now if this article had another one or two sections on another aspect of the film such as soundtrack, themes, release, etc. then there would be sufficient content to asses it as Start class. But without the complete synopsis it would not be able to reach B-class. By following the guidelines in these templates, there are more uniform assessments throughout the project. I understand that it is a short film but a plot synopsis shouldn't be too hard to add. Let me know on my talk page if you need further clarification. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A Start-Class article cannot reasonably be expected to be fully MOS-compliant, and on top of that a short film cannot reasonably be expected to meet the minimum 400 words of plot that it calls for. The MOS is a style guide, not a set of assessment criteria, and the template above merely calls for the inclusion of plot with no further stipulations. A synopsis is much harder to add than you think, considering I am reliant on web sources for a 24 min film with minimal plot.
 * Regarding the cast, yes, there are only two charcters in the film. I believe that here especially your reading of the MOS is in error. There is no requirement for a "cast list", and rather than "detailing the roles of the actors" (i.e. reiterating plot summary) the article should instead provide real world background information.
 * I disagree that the improvement template in the banner is complimentary to the grading scheme, nor do I think that the majority of our Start-Class articles conform to such heavy requirements (indeed, if we are to follow the above to the letter, I might question the Start-Class rating you gave to another of my recent articles), but this is a broader concern I will raise elsewhere in due course. This article clearly meets the Start-Class criteria of the grading scheme, i.e:
 * "The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack some key elements. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials"
 * Conversely, it does not fit the description for Stub-Class:
 * "The article is either very short or a rough collection of information"
 * As you say, a more complete synopsis would be required for B-Class, but this should not be a pressing concern for a Start-Class article. PC78 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had looked over the MOSFILM yesterday over the cast section and it allows for three different methods (I myself had always thought it preferred a separate cast list, but either is fine). I had assumed there was more than two characters, and if that was the case, a separate cast section should be used to include the actors/characters as they were not mentioned in the plot. In order to compensate for the lack of a full plot synopsis, in the past, I have always upgraded an article if it had one more section of information (past the standard four) as I described above. My interpretation of "The article has a meaningful amount of good content" would include the article focusing on the plot, its cast members, and a few other sections of information. The "lack of some key elements" would include important parts of the film including production, marketing, soundtrack, etc. which absence would be allowable for just getting to Start class. That's why I developed the template to closely match this grading scheme, and it was met with consensus. I don't see it to be "heavy requirements", and I think it has worked out very well so far for improving a lot of our articles. Obviously not all Start class articles will be at the same level since assessments are open to anyone. For this reason, the coordinators have been talking about doing another reassessment drive of all of the Stub/Start class articles early next year so that there is more uniformity in the articles meeting the requirements. I'm not obviously trying to fight you on preventing this article in reaching Start class, but I just want to ensure that this article is uniform with the hundreds of other articles that I have assessed when going through the same steps. I recognize that you haven't seen the film and can't add a synopsis, so adding one more section should be sufficient in upgrading to Start class. At that point you can do it yourself or let me know and I'll take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be more constructive, I think, to continue discussing much of the above with you elsewhere. With regards to this article, I have fleshed out the "plot" and "interpretions" and broken them up into seperate sections. I have also split "release" and "critical response", though no real additions were made there save the mention of another film festival, as well a bit of clarification here and there regarding the number of and names of the characters. It should easily be sufficient now, but I feel it appropriate at this juncture to let you make that call. There's really no more I can do with the article unless fresh sources become available in the future; a pity WP:RS prohibits me from using two excellent blog sources I found. PC78 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand you don't necessarily agree with how the assessments are done, but I believe the article does now meet the requirements. Looking over Death Bell, I would have assessed that Start as well as it does have another section to compensate for the plot synopsis. Good job on expanding this article further, and if you wish to further discuss the assessments, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)