Talk:The Great Silence/GA1

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to give this article a Review for possible GA status. It is massive so be patient...might take me a while. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Looks good. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Reference #57/Fantom.com isn't working, Reference #62 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002KM9V3I?ie=UTF8&tag=spaghetti-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B002KM9V3)I isn't working - I'm also not sure why an Amazon listing is being used as a reference, that's not reliable. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads up, I brought up on the talk page earlier something that never seemed to be picked up. Some of the reception section pulls from a site called the spaghetti western database, which appears to be another wiki, which is not a reliable source]. [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Any further work on this Review is   until the following issues are resolved:
 * In the "Subversion of protagonist" section there are some troubling areas of commonality with:
 * Article: then delivers a symbolic "castration" upon the hero,
 * Source(Ref#20): The latter then delivers a symbolic "castration" upon the hero by taking the Mauser for himself after killing him
 * Article: Thus, when his own hands are injured, a "Freudian Cycle" is complete
 * Source (Ref #24): Silence would often shoot his victims in the hands, perhaps a Freudian response to his own mutilation.
 * Article: Silence's choice of weapon is a semi-automatic Mauser C96 – its rapid rate of fire gives him an unfair advantage over his opponents, therefore his marksmanship comes in part from technological, not physical, prowess.
 * Source(Ref #20): His gun is a semi automatic Mauser rather than a revolver. His accuracy with it is incredible, but the gun’s more rapid rate of fire gives him an unfair advantage over his opponents, who are using the standard single action revolvers familiar from most Westerns. His ‘exceptional ability’ in this case is more as a result of technology than any physical prowess.
 * This article is, in general, very well-written - I am sure that these issues are inadvertent but this section needs to be completely re-written to take care of any possible plagiarism/copyvio issues. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * These issues have been adjusted to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * everything looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See "References" section below. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass.All of this article's referencing issues have been fixed according to WP guidelines/parameters. This article is well-written and is well-researched according to WP:GA Criteria.  PatTheMoron was a pleasure to work with, worked on improving the article, taking my suggestions and running with them.  Going forward, some possible future improvements would be keeping the article up-to-date with the recently-announced 4K restoration (& possible public screenings?...we can only hope).  Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * everything looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * See "References" section below. Shearonink (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass.All of this article's referencing issues have been fixed according to WP guidelines/parameters. This article is well-written and is well-researched according to WP:GA Criteria.  PatTheMoron was a pleasure to work with, worked on improving the article, taking my suggestions and running with them.  Going forward, some possible future improvements would be keeping the article up-to-date with the recently-announced 4K restoration (& possible public screenings?...we can only hope).  Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pass.All of this article's referencing issues have been fixed according to WP guidelines/parameters. This article is well-written and is well-researched according to WP:GA Criteria.  PatTheMoron was a pleasure to work with, worked on improving the article, taking my suggestions and running with them.  Going forward, some possible future improvements would be keeping the article up-to-date with the recently-announced 4K restoration (& possible public screenings?...we can only hope).  Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Protagonist section
[The post below was originally posted on my talkpage, but I moved it here to keep all the discussion on the Review page. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)]

Thank you very much for your review of The Great Silence. I removed the Amazon-related info from the DVD section, but how do you recommend I go about with the other changes you recommended? What should I rewrite within the protagonist section? PatTheMoron (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You've read a lot of articles/books about the movie? Write something up in your sandbox in your own words, paraphrasing what these other writers have stated in published sources and use their books/articles as the references.  You can use references as your sources, you just have to put their information into your own words. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Shearonink, I've rewritten part of the protagonist section to explicitly mention the writers who described the film in the terms they did. Is it okay, now? PatTheMoron (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Am taking another look at that - I'm actually doing a deep proofread-readthrough, so I'll let you know. Shearonink (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)