Talk:Sicko/GA1

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

I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this because I'm not sure about the writing style of the Synopsis and, more importantly, the NPOVness of the article. I think I might be projecting my political views on my review (oops! ;) Check your first picture, it needs author info. Also, ref # 34 needs help. It's a pretty good article though, I just want to make sure everything's fine. I'll try and be of more help sometime when I'm not so tired! Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the entire paragraph linked to ref 34 as it appeared to be an sneaky ad for another film, and no source was provided for the interview. The entire section reads like a data dump, with partisans simply unloading whatever they could find.  Unless there is some reason why Hannity's interview is notable here, and unless an actual source can be provided, it should remain deleted. Viriditas (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I made some changes to the synopsis to improve readability. Viriditas (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The material in question was not an ad, "sneaky" or otherwise, nor a "data dump", nor am I a "partisan", as I've never seen Browning's film, and do not have a personal opinion on it. "Sneaky" implies that it was somehow inserted with the intent of escaping notice. How can it be thus if it's placed in the article for everyone to read? It was an interview by Hannity of Stuart Browning, whose film disputes Moore's picture of Canadian health care, which makes it relevant to criticism of Sicko. A link to a video of the interview was indeed provided, but because that video was at some point removed from that YouTube user's page, someone removed the link without replacing it with either another version of the video or a citation tag. Please do not make such accusations toward other users unless you can show not only that the material has the sole effect of advertisement, but that you can illustrate this intent to the exclusion of other, less nefarious intents. Failing to do this could be construed as a violation of WP:Civility, WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith. Your other edits, however, were well-made, IMO. Kudos. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments addressed content, not a particular editor. This content is blatant coatracking, and the Response#Media section is out of proportion to content about the film.  There is very little rhyme or reason to the Response#Media section, and it reads like an unbalanced trivia section.  Except for the synopsis and the deleted scenes section there is almost nothing but POV coatracking.  Furthermore, Roger Ebert is supposed to appear in the critical reaction section, not the Response#Media.  The WBAI Radio reference should appear in a separate "activism" or "campaign" section, which is what it is describing.  So, when you remove those two sources and place them in the correct context, you are left with seven paragraphs, all cherry picked for their negative portrayal of the film and tangential explorations into issues that have nothing to do with the film.  This is a breach of NPOV and the best example of coatracking I have ever seen. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

When you accuse material of being placed in the article by "partisans" with the intent of "sneaking an ad" into it, you are indeed commenting on editors, regardless of whether you name names. Are you saying that you can violate Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks as long as you do not name names? The fact is, you talked about intent, without providing evidence that either excluded other possible intents, or showed how intent was even relevant, when Wikipedia policy prescribes that we not do so. So your statement that you addressed only content is false. As for your coatracking observation, I personally don't see why "Critical reaction" and "Response" are presented as separate sections, so I removed them. That said, the material does seem to be a bit too much, and could be summarized. The Expelled article has the same problem. Nightscream (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Intothewoods29 expressed concern with reference 34. I responded here.  I said that the material appeared to be a sneaky ad for another film and no source was provided for the interview.  Both of my statements are valid, as the source cited does not support the statement it is allegedly referencing.  When one follows the citation, the following appears: "FreeMarketCure.com, the official site of the film Uninsured in America".  So this is a note, not a reference.  In short, this is a surreptitious advertisement for Stuart Browning's film.  The source offered does not support the statement (Hannity interviewed Stuart Browning) and Browning and his film are virtually unknown.  Furthermore, there is not a single reliable source that documents the Hannity/Browning interview as a notable event.  It is extremely poor form to cite and interpret primary sources such as a YouTube video of a non-neutral talk show television program.  All sources must be evaluated for authority, accuracy, and currency; Hannity and Browning fail the first two and do not meet the most basic criteria for inclusion.  As for the overwhelming evidence for partisan conflict on this page, I suggest you read through the talk archives, the five RfC's, the COI noticeboard discussion, and the proposed arbcom case. I also note that instead of fixing the problem, you spent your time edit warring with another editor.  I stand by my original comments.  See also: WP:DUCK. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment: The "Critical reaction" section is rather long — perhaps it should be broken up into sub-sections? Parts of it are also very choppy, with one- and two-sentence paragraphs; prose like that is not GA-quality, IMHO. Also, I haven't seen Sicko, but according to Template:Infobox Film, the language parameter should include multiple languages "only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films". I don't think this film is, so I've changed it accordingly. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was broken up into the appropriate sub-sections just last week, but Nightscream removed them for some reason.  The prose is certainly atrocious, and much of it is coatracked, non-notable interpretations of primary sources and should be deleted. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Madman (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to take over the GAN review of this article, feel free to do so. Just be sure to add your name under the entry on WP:GAN and remove mine. Sorry, but I have a lot coming up, and I won't be able to devote enough time to this nom. Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll help out here. I made a couple of edits that I hope reduce the POV.  I also believe that the "Critical reaction" section should be broken down.  More to come.  Madman (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A new read-thru
I did a complete read-thru of the article and my biggest concern is that the article has the feel of many editors adding many bits of information. This is certainly understandable, given the high visibility of the subject matter, but the article would benefit from someone smoothing out the prose and structure.

My second biggest concern is that the article could be trimmer -- it's a bit flabby right now. For example, it's mentioned twice that the film received a standing ovation at Cannes. For example, is it important to say that the Austin Chronicle puts this film at 8th best for the year??

More later, Madman (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Super. Thanks. Could you please take over the review at WP:GAN? I'm incredibly busy at the moment. My apologies to those who have had to wait so long for this to pass. <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the 6th paragraph in the "Deleted scenes" heading. The last part of the sentence states: ..."that the film has been documenting in other nations within the USA." This needs clarification, as it implies there are other nations within the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.210.37 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed
I have not had any response in the past 10 days to this posting, so I'm failing this GA nomination. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)