Talk:United Nations in popular culture/GA1

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

General comments

 * This is irrelevant to whether or not this article meets the WP:Good article criteria, but it would make more sense to me to categorize this as a "Language and literature" GA nomination rather than as a "Politics and government" one. All the "X in fiction/popular culture/whatever" WP:Good articles that I have seen are listed at Good articles/Language and literature (and not, say Good articles/Natural sciences for Genetics in fiction or Good articles/Natural sciences for Mercury in fiction).
 * In hindsight, I agree with this, although literature is certainly narrower than popular culture as a whole. Pilaz (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This needs quite a lot of copyediting. Some of it is purely typographical such as hyphens that should be en dashes (e.g. The West Wing(1999-2006)), italics and capitalization for titles (e.g. Hotel Rwanda (2004) and The 2017 New Zealand documentary My year with Helen), and use of MOS:CURLY quotes (e.g. “world freedom of the screen, along with radio and the press”). Other issues relate to prose quality such as tone (e.g. At any rate, the advent of the Cold War [...]) and redundancy (e.g. On the topic of the peacekeeping missions of the United Nations, Paul Cowan's documentary The Peacekeepers (2006) sheds light on peacekeepers [...]). I'll bring up more examples in the sections below.
 * Typographical, italics, capitalizations issues, and MOS:CURLY mostly solved. Still working through most of the redundancies. Pilaz (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The good article criteria only mandate that the list of references exist and be compliant with MOS:REFERENCES, not that the references be consistently formatted (which is among the WP:Featured article criteria), but I must say I found the approach here rather idiosyncratic. For example: Hajjami is listed in the Bibliography section as "Nabil Hajjami" with the translated title and the date September 2019, while the first inline reference is a full reference to "Hajjami, Nabil" and the original title with the date April 2019, and the following references just say "Hajjami 2019" and the relevant page number.
 * ✅ The listed date of April 2019 was incorrect, so I changed it to September 2019. However, the "Hajjami 2019" and page number shortened citations are fully compliant with WP:CITESHORT. Pilaz (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The point I was getting at was not that there is anything wrong with any particular reference style, but that there is an eclectic mix of reference styles. This does not need to be fixed to meet the WP:Good article criteria, but it would be an improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no images. I think I would aim for 3–5 images based on the length of the article, but that of course depends on the images that can be found. As a start, I would suggest at least including File:North by Northwest movie trailer screenshot (13).jpg, which is already included at Headquarters of the United Nations (a WP:Good article).
 * ✅ I've added two images to the first section. However, I find other popular culture depictions of the UN on Wikimedia Commons lacking. I will see if I can upload something to Commons to make up for that, or lower my expectations. Pilaz (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious to me that dividing this by medium is the best way to organize the article.
 * Noted. Suggested alternatives would be welcome, although none, except perhaps restructuring the article on a thematic basis (representation of the organization, representation of the UN headquarters, UN peacekeepers...) comes to mind as an improvement. I think alternatives would be less inclusive than the current structure. Pilaz (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In my experience it is usually best to organize these articles by theme, so that's probably how I would do it. It can also be done chronologically, and in practice it tends to become a mix of the two. If sources on the overarching topic consistently do it in a particular way, we should follow suit. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are several single-sentence paragraphs.
 * Pilaz (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I find myself asking "why mention this?" a lot. This goes for details (e.g. why mention that Superman IV: The Quest for Peace starred Christopher Reeve?), examples (e.g. why mention Superman IV at all?), and topics (e.g. why mention superhero films as a subgenre that has depicted the UN in the first place?). How did you make these determinations?

Lead

 * The WP:LEAD is very short for the length of the article.
 * The United Nations (UN) has been depicted in several films, television, literature, and other media which shape popular culture. – starting the list with a plural ("several films") and then using singular produces a jarring effect, as one would expect the following terms to also be plural (i.e. parse it as several films, [several] television, [several] literature [...]). This can be fixed most easily by making the first term singular (depicted in film, television, literature [...]). It could also be fixed by making all terms plural (several films, television shows, works of literature [...] – which one would parse as several films, [several] television shows, [several] works of literature [...]).
 * ✅. Chose the singular form of film. Pilaz (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Frequent depictions of the UN involve the organization itself, UN bodies and agencies, the UN headquarters, peacekeeping activities and UN peacekeepers, and UN workers. – it's unclear to me what is meant to be conveyed here. It seems borderline trivial, though perhaps there is something I am missing?
 * The popular representations of the UN don't cover the United Nations holistically, preferring instead specific aspects of the organization to highlight. For example, in The Poppy Is Also a Flower, the United Nations is only represented through its workers (UN narcotics agents), whereas in The Interpreter coverage of the United Nations is mostly limited to the architecture of the UN headquarters. Would this sort of more extensive explanation look better in the lead? Pilaz (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of analysis that categorically needs to come from the sources. The current phrasing is at any rate not terribly clear, and the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded regardless. When rewriting, keep in mind that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the kind of analysis that categorically needs to come from the sources. The current phrasing is at any rate not terribly clear, and the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded regardless. When rewriting, keep in mind that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Films

 * Hollywood established an early relationship with the UN during its inception. is ambiguous—it refers to the UN's inception rather than Hollywood's, but could be parsed either way by a reader unfamiliar with the topic. Try to rephrase it.
 * ✅ Now reads: Hollywood established an early relationship with the UN during the latter's inception. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hollywood and other European film centers seems to incorrectly imply that Hollywood is a European film center.
 * ✅ Removed other. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The synergy between the world of cinema and the UN – "synergy" has a very specific meaning, namely that the combined effect of two (or more) things is greater than the sum of their individual effects. Is it really the right word to use here?
 * ✅. Changed to The early connection between the world of cinema and the UN. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the award-winning film The Glass Wall (1953) – MOS:PUFFERY. There are further examples of this later in the article.
 * ✅. Removed award-winning. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The description of The Glass Wall needs copyediting. The large number of commas impedes readability and the phrasing is a bit clunky.
 * Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of all the films of the period featuring the UN, the one to have perhaps best survived in popular culture is Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest (1959). – "survived" is an odd word to use here and "perhaps" seems like editorializing. More pressingly, this assessment of pop-cultural longevity needs to come from the sources (it is not verified by the first cited source after this sentence, a few sentences later).
 * ✅ Replaced the sentence with The UN headquarters and organization were also prominently featured Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest (1959). Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the film, the protagonist (Roger) travels – saying "protagonist Roger" seems more natural than "the protagonist (Roger)", but referring to characters by first name only is rather nonstandard, so it should probably be "protagonist Roger Thornhill" (and just "Thornhill" for any subsequent mentions).
 * ✅ Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hitchcock was allegedly not allowed to film inside the UN building – why "allegedly"? The cited source doesn't use that qualifier. Is this a matter under dispute?
 * ✅. Removed allegedly. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * had to publicly protest in 1955 due to the difficulty of obtaining a passport due to anti-UN sentiment – avoid saying "due to" twice in a single sentence.
 * ✅. Changed sentence to had to publicly protest in 1955 due to the difficulty of obtaining a passport, which she attributed to anti-UN sentiment. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * accusation of being a Communist fellow traveler – why the capital C? The next paragraph says accusing the UN of being a communist front with a minuscule c.
 * ✅. Changed to communist (lowercase). Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * CBS declined to participate citing that it would violate CBS policy – suggest "their policy" instead.
 * ✅. As suggested. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the United Nations television film series, which aired four television films – I'm fairly certain that the film series did not air the films. This is also a terribly redundant phrasing.
 * ✅. This may require your attention, as I lengthened the sentence quite a bit to also accomodate the concerns raised below. It now reads: The depiction of the UN in the 1960s was significantly impacted the United Nations television film series. Set to be aired to an American audience, the series comprised four television films which portrayed the United Nations – Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ultimately only leaving ABC to air the UN film series – this reveals a rather unfortunate WP:AMERICENTRIC bias—what about all television networks outside of the US? The explanation is of course that this was from the outset a US project, but the article neglects to mention that rather important fact. "the UN film series" is also a somewhat conspicuous phrasing to use when simply "the series" or "the films" would do.
 * ✅. Added Set to be aired to an American audience, to the second paragraph, and added in the United States after ultimately only leaving ABC to air the UN film series. Please let me know if this is redundant. Also changed the UN film series to the series to avoid redundancy. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having both Set to be aired to an American audience and in the United States is a bit redundant, but they are far enough apart in the paragraph that I find it to be acceptable within WP:Good article standards. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All four movies received mixed reviews; in spite of this, The Poppy Is Also a Flower [...] won one Emmy Award and was released to theaters in Europe and the United States. – there are three parts to this that are all unsourced: (1) all movies receiving mixed reviews, (2) The Poppy Is Also a Flower winning an Emmy and being released to theaters, and (3) "in spite of this".
 * ✅. (1) is an assessment made at United Nations television film series, reproduced under WP:SUMMARIZE. (2) and (3) are now cited to the same sources of United Nations television film series. The sentence now reads: All four films received mixed reviews; The Poppy Is Also a Flower won one Emmy Award for best supporting actor, and the film was released to theaters in Europe. I have also added an additional citation which verifies that the production won one Emmy Award for best supporting actor. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The new phrasing is something of a non sequitur. The two clauses separated by the semicolon seem almost contradictory (mixed reviews for all four vs. positive things about one of them). The sources may verify the factual basis here, but why is it mentioned at all at this article (as opposed to only covering it at the article United Nations television film series)? The sources are not on the topic of how the UN has been represented in popular culture, so why go into this detail about the critical reception, Emmy-winning, and theatrical release in Europe of this particular depiction? It seems rather tangential to the overarching topic, and I find it dubiously WP:PROPORTIONATE. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * co-written by Ian Fleming and directed by Terence Young, who had previously directed several James Bond films – it's a bit odd to mention Young's connection to James Bond but not Fleming's. On the other hand, why mention this aspect at all?
 * ✅. Removed this section of the sentence. I now believe the connection to James Bond not necessary to the understanding of this article. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * UN narcotics agents on the hunt against a heroin distributor – hunt for, not against.
 * ✅. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The United Nations also find their place – treated as plural here but singular elsewhere. I'm fairly certain it should be singular. This is also not a particularly encyclopaedic way of phrasing it.
 * ✅. Changed to: Some superhero films of this period also feature the United Nations. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * On the inclusion of Superman's speech at the UN, the Christian Science Monitor quipped: "even superheroes like media attention". – the name of the newspaper needs proper capitalization and italics, but why is their quip included here when only sourced to the newspaper itself?
 * . Italics and proper capitalization corrected. I've changed the sentence to In a review, The Christian Science Monitor belittled the speech at the United Nations by comparing it to superheroes wanting media attention., which I think is a bit more explicit than the previous sentence, but I'm eager to hear feedback on this (the CS Monitor review reads: He makes a speech to the United Nations (even superheroes like media attention), and then carries out his plan.) I think this comment criticizes the inclusion of the UN in the film by equating it to a press release. I don't disagree with the assessment, I just think that it's a worthy comment about the representation of the UN in this film. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of that quote is that they're poking fun at Superman, not the UN. This underlines my point that we should not include this when it's sourced only to the newspaper itself; we shouldn't infer the source's intentions based on our own intepretations. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As the world transitioned from a bipolar to a multipolar order after the end of the Cold War, the United Nations saw a revival of its functions, with depictions of the organization proliferating. – this is the kind of WP:ANALYSIS that really needs to come from the sources.
 * To be clear, it needs to come from sources that make this analysis in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2000s, in particular, saw a multiplication of films depicting the UN. – "multiplication" is an odd word to use here. If the intended meaning is "increase", say that instead. This also needs to be sourced properly.
 * Of note is the first film ever allowed to film on UN grounds, Sydney Pollack's political thriller The Interpreter (2005). – let the facts speak for themselves. Saying that this is "of note" is MOS:EDITORIALIZING.
 * The film notably casts a UN interpreter – "casts"? Also MOS:NOTABLY.
 * The United Nations setting earned broadly positive reviews – this needs to be backed up with sourcing that verifies this general assertion, rather than (as is currently the case) just examples of such reviews.
 * Rolling Stone noted – MOS:SAID. I would also link Rolling Stone (and the same goes for Variety (magazine) later on).
 * its film debut — a smashing one — in The Interpreter – normalize dashes per MOS:CONFORM.
 * with A.O. Scott deploring that ethnic conflicts and geopolitical alliances were not touched upon by the film, preferring instead to limit the exposition of the UN to its architecture – "deploring" is a rather strong phrasing. The current phrasing also says that Scott is the one preferring to limit the exposition in this way, rather than the film.
 * Caryn James questioning why the UN was needed in the first place, as it adds "little except self-importance" to the film – this puts James' opinion in WP:WikiVoice.
 * Other reviewers echoed – "echoed"? This is followed by quotes from the "other reviewers" in question.
 * "the lack of disappointingly slim grasp of UN life" – this is a misquote. The source says "we get a disappointingly slim grasp of U.N. life."
 * and the fact that the movie was "so lofty as if it were made to be screened at the United Nations". – that's not a fact, that's an opinion. This is also a misquote; the source says "The Interpreter is so lofty it feels as if it were made to be screened at the United Nations."
 * Who are Serge Sur and Anne Lagerwall? I gather that they are academics, but that is rather broad and doesn't explain why their opinions are relevant enough to be quoted here.
 * The seemingly controversial political satire The Dictator (2012) – "seemingly controversial"?
 * The role of the UN in the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide, where the UN sent blue helmets but failed to prevent the violence – "X did Y but failed to Z" needs a source making that same point.
 * The sources that have been added are speaking in a real-world context. Using these sources for this purpose in the context of this article is not appropriate, and it comes across as trying to make a point. As WP:No original research says, References must be cited in context and on topic. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the 2001 Oscar-winning Bosnian film No Man's Land – up to this point, the years for films have consistently been given in parentheses rather than as descriptors, so this rather sticks out. "Oscar-winning" should be removed.
 * the New York Times – The New York Times.
 * the Academy-nominated Hotel Rwanda (2004) – "Academy-nominated" is a nonstandard term. Assuming that it refers to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the term should either be "Academy Award-nominated" or "Oscar-nominated", but this is of course another example of MOS:PUFFERY that should be removed altogether.
 * the UN commander's representation has been criticized as historically inaccurate – the source says "Another historical inaccuracy in the film concerns its portrayal of the leader of the UNAMIR mission. In Hotel Rwanda, he is Colonel Oliver, a fictional character based on Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire." To my eye, describing that as criticizing historical inaccuracy is overly strong phrasing. The section on historical accuracy begins with "The history of the peoples of Rwanda and its neighboring countries is complex and disputed, so inevitably this movie contains some simplifications." That's acknowledging historical inaccuracy, but hardly criticizing it. Saying that the source criticizes the representation of the UN commander as historically inaccurate while omitting that the source describes the commander as a fictional character based on a real one is to my eye straight-up misrepresenting what the source says.
 * the films contrasts the impotence of Dallaire with the unused potential that the UN had in affecting the genocide and saving lives, among other actors – "among other actors"?
 * sheds light on the trauma – unencyclopaedic phrasing.
 * a Bosnian UN translator – Bosniak seems much more relevant than Bosnian, though the cited source doesn't verify either.
 * UN field workers and peacekeepers have also become increasingly the protagonists of their own films beyond genocide. – this is the kind of WP:ANALYSIS that really needs to come from the sources.
 * Why mention that The Siege of Jadotville and Sergio are from Netflix?
 * The UN has continued to progressively open its locations to representation by the film industry. – source?
 * The United Nations Office at Vienna was chosen as the location for the signature of the Sokovia Accords, in Captain America: Civil War (2016), which is bombed during the signing of the Accord putting the Avengers under UN authority. – this needs copyediting for grammar and readability.
 * The UN subsequently became the subject of several pieces exploring its role – I had to look at the sources to figure out what this was trying to say (namely that real-world think pieces weighed in on which role the UN should play in the fictional world of the movie). The sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity.
 * mirroring the factions of the film – if you're going to say that the think pieces mirrored the factions of the film, you need a source that explicitly says that the think pieces mirrored the factions of the film.
 * The academic-oriented international law blog Opinio Juris – "academic-oriented international law blog"? Opinio Juris (blog) should probably be linked if it isn't deleted.
 * in his quality of king of Wakanda – in his capacity as?
 * Why mention the Black Panther post-credits scene at all, and why here?
 * New comment after the initial review: Is the chronological division of this section (Early years: 1945–1960, Pushback, gridlock and Cold War: 1960–1991, and The multipolar years: 1991–present) a standard one used by sources on cinematic depictions of the UN? TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * New comment after the initial review: The added image has a caption that reads The headquarters of the UN as depicted in the 1959 film North by Northwest of Alfred Hitchcock – the title should be in italics, and "of" should be "by". TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Television

 * Documentaries about the United Nations frequently document the work of individuals within the organization, the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, or ridicule the organization. – source?
 * Do you want me to source this statement to the television series described later in this section, since this is a descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge, per WP:PRIMARY? Happy to drop the frequently if necessary. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With "frequently", this is WP:ANALYSIS that needs to be sourced for WP:VERIFICATION. The sentence could be reworked to instead become a descriptive summary of the "Documentaries" subsection (it currently doesn't really do that properly either—there is no mention of the UN being ridiculed elsewhere in the subsection, for instance) that doesn't need to be sourced separately for verification. However, this leads to the question of WP:WEIGHT (and in particular, WP:PROPORTION). The examples of documentaries all come exclusively from sources on the examples themselves, not sources on the overarching topic of the article (how the UN has been depicted in popular culture) or even this subsection (how the UN has been depicted in documentaries). Why are these the examples used? Is that reflective of the literature on the subject? Without sources on the overarching topic, there is no way to ensure that this represents due weight. The content here could be completely at odds with the treatment given in reliable sources on the topic in terms of relative weight, and we would have no way of knowing that without those sources. In short, verifiability is not the only reason sources are required, we also need them to assess and assign proper weight. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Helen Clark should be linked.
 * ✅. Changes in bold: My Year With Helen follows the unsuccessful bid of Helen Clark to become the first female UN Secretary-General. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Omitting that Clark's candidacy was ultimately unsuccessful is a bit conspicuous.
 * ✅. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * whereas Cahal McLaughlin, Siobhán Wills's It Stays with You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti (2017) investigates [...] – this is ungrammatical and difficult to parse. Is it supposed to say that (1) the film by McLaughlin and Wills investigates, (2) that McLaughlin investigates in the film by Wills, or (3) something else?
 * ✅. Rephrased in order to clarify that the subject of the sentence is the documentary: whereas the documentary It Stays with You: Use of Force by UN Peacekeepers in Haiti (2017) of Cahal McLaughlin and Siobhán Wills investigates civilian deaths at the hands of UN peacekeepers in Cité Soleil, Haiti, between 2004 and 2007. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That should presumably be "by" McLaughlin and Wills rather than "of" them. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the documentary U.N. Me, influenced by Sacha Baron Cohen's interviewing techniques – all three cited sources make comparisons to Michael Moore and only one to Sacha Baron Cohen. Why is Cohen mentioned here but not Moore?
 * ✅. It would make more sense to have Moore than Cohen mentioned in the article indeed, but going back to one of your recurring questions: why bother mentioning this? Removed influenced by Sacha Baron Cohen's interviewing techniques, since this removal doesn't negatively impact the article. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "T. H. R. Staff" is not the name of the author of The Hollywood Reporter article.
 * . I only see THR Staff listed as author under the byline. Is 1) the author named somewhere else, 2) is it a punctuation problem, or 3) does THR Staff need to be removed since it is not an identifiable physical person? Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Number 3. When an article is credited only to unnamed people working at the publication, I just leave the author parameters blank. There may be some other way of dealing with it, but we certainly cannot treat it as "first name: 'T. H. R.', last name: 'Staff'". TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * offers a critique of the United Nations through the travels of its filmmakers, who seek to expose its shortcomings and scandals – the first "its" refers to the film and the second "its" to the UN. Try to rephrase to avoid this.
 * ✅. Rephrased to (changes in bold): offers a critique of the United Nations through the travels of its filmmakers, who seek to expose the organization's shortcomings and scandals. Pilaz (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Warriors stuff relies way too much on verbatim quotes.
 * ✅. Paraphrased.
 * the United Nations and the United States, where the protagonists hail from – is this meant to say that the protagonists hail from the UN and the US?
 * Israeli-Palestinian conflict – Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
 * ✅. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The circumnavigation of the UN Security Council – circumvention?
 * ✅ – circumvention. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the misrepresentation of the role of the UN Secretary-General – in what way?
 * ✅. Added, in parenthesis: (who is implied to be in control of the peacekeeping operation) Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. I would add a further "rather than" clause to briefly explain how it actually works. The reader cannot be assumed to know how this is incorrect, so that context should be provided for them. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the role of UN peacekeepers "botching" their mission in Rwanda is a subject of scrutiny – who is this quoting and why? This expresses the viewpoint that they mismanaged their assignment, using informal and somewhat inflammatory language in quotation marks, without attribution.
 * ✅ – rephrased to in particular, the shortcomings of the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda are a subject of scrutiny. Both sources mention this: The Guardian less directly (one particularly harrowing scene involving UN peacekeepers shows that honourable intentions are not the same as fair and just results., with the A.V. Club being much more explicit (There’s very little wrongdoing that Black Earth Rising doesn’t attempt to address, from the United Nations botching its peacekeeping mission in Rwanda) Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a major improvement. When writing articles like this, it is crucial to be mindful of the distinction between the subject of the depiction and the depiction itself. That goes both for the phrasing we use in the article and the context in which the sources are speaking. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Animated cartoons – is there any other kind?
 * . Yes, non-animated cartoons? Cartoons aren't always animated according to Cartoon, and Animation also has the term cartoon bolded in the lead. Animated cartoon seemed like a good compromise to me at the time. I know we have comic books as a subsequent section, but I wonder if readers will expect comic books to be under cartoons. Any thoughts about how to best go forward on this? Animation perhaps, or just simply cartoons? Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. Under the heading "Television", saying "Animated cartoons" seems rather redundant, however. I would use "Animation" here. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the United Nations play an important role as they are depicted – treated as plural again.
 * ✅. Singular. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * wiping off humanity's dignitaries – wiping out?
 * ✅. As suggested. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the superhero cartoon series Young Justice, the Justice League is forced to deal with UN sanctions, as control over the United Nations remains an important theme throughout the series, and is also hampered by the election of nemesis Lex Luthor – "as" control remains an important theme? Who or what is hampered? This needs copyediting.
 * ✅. I split the sentence in two, and added one Polygon piece. The passage now reads: Throughout the superhero cartoon series Young Justice, the Justice League is forced to deal with UN sanctions and to struggle for influence over the United Nations. The Justice League is also hindered by the election of nemesis Lex Luthor to the position of UN Secretary-General. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the election of nemesis Lex Luthor to the position of United Nations Secretary-General – this is the seventh time the Secretary-General is mentioned in the article. Not linking the term until here seems rather late.
 * ✅. As suggested. Pilaz (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Literature

 * The entire "Science fiction" section is almost a thousand words—roughly a quarter of the length of the article as a whole—and cites only a single source. At some point, over-reliance on a single source crosses the line into outright plagiarism regardless of referencing, rephrasing, and WP:INTEXT attribution.
 * the Isaac Asimov short story Shah Guido G – titles of short stories are presented in "quotes", not italics, and Isaac Asimov should definitely be linked.
 * The reader shouldn't have to click the links to find out that Blue Mars and Red Mars are part of a series—the Mars trilogy.
 * one of the leaders of the expedition on Mars recalls his counterparts to their duty, stating that their will is dictated by the United Nations, which represents 10 billion people, versus the ten thousand that they represent – "recalls his counterparts to their duty"?
 * Stanisław Lem should be linked.
 * Unsurprisingly, extraterrestrials often expect – don't use "unsurprisingly". A more relevant link than extraterrestrials would be Extraterrestrial intelligence or Extraterrestrials in fiction (take your pick).
 * the UN is defined as "alienating, oppressive and militaristic" – "defined"?
 * the world currency has become the UN dollar; and the organization overcharges – using a semicolon here does not seem correct to me.
 * in French sci-fi novel needs a definite article.
 * the UN votes adopts a law to kill newborns – anacoluthon.
 * Red Mars is given as an example of both idealist and realist depictions of the UN. This apparent discrepancy should be clarified.
 * at times capable of raising armies – I would parse "at times" as "some of the time in a given work", though the intended meaning is presumably "in some works". "Sometimes" or "occasionally" would be better.
 * The architecture of the Assembly also leaves characters divided: admirative for some, and disenchanted for other. – I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Also, the last word should be plural.
 * More often than not, the Secretary-General mirrors the real world, in that it is represented as a male or female political figure with a nationality, ranging from the idealist to the cynic. – as opposed to what? Also, the last two definite articles should be indefinite ones.
 * Finally, science fiction depictions of the United Nations depict it as a bureaucratic institution, as a corrupt institution, and underline its legal formalism. – is this generally true, or should there be a qualifier along the lines of "some"?
 * depict it as a bureaucratic institution, as a corrupt institution, and underline its legal formalism. – is this three different ways of depicting it or three different aspects of the same depiction (or something else entirely)? Either way, it needs copyediting for clarity.
 * Dick, Barjavel and Dantec describe the organization as a bureaucracy. – maybe there's something I'm missing, but this seems rather trivial?
 * In Dick, Bordage and Dantec, UN officials engage in acts of corruption – if this is true of multiple works by these authors, write "In the works of", and if it applies to specific works that have already been mentioned, give the titles. Either way, avoid the metonymy of using the author's name to mean their works.
 * in Haldeman's Forever War, the only way to make the organization incorruptible would be to automate it, depriving it of its humanity. – this is rather unclear. Does this assertion come from the book itself or is it analysis of the book?
 * Legal formalism is basically only name-checked. The article does not make it clear why this is something that is interesting to note or examine further.
 * Robert A. Heinlein should be linked.
 * "Finally" is used five times in the article, thrice in this section, and twice in a single paragraph.
 * Beyond science-fiction, other representations – it is debatable whether "science fiction" should have a hyphen when used attributively (e.g. "science-fiction novel"), but it should not have one when used as a stand-alone term.
 * other representations of the UN have also seen the light in fiction – "seen the light" is not exactly the most encyclopaedic phrasing.
 * the protagonist works for the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations – I would link League of Nations, but why is this included at all? This is not actually about the UN.
 * offers a fictional critique of the organization – what is meant by "a fictional critique" in this context?
 * offers through fiction insights – clunky wording.
 * Is it "Plutonian" or "the Plutonian"?
 * Iron Man is seen giving a speech at the United Nations – what about it?
 * the UN disavows the Avengers' charter – this is entirely devoid of context that would make it understandable to anyone not already familiar with this storyline.

Video games

 * an incredibly powerful corporation – don't use "incredibly".
 * ✅. See below. Pilaz (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * given that the "world's problems" have been "outsourced" to him – overuse of direct quotes. Paraphrase instead.
 * ✅. Split in two sentences, removed direct quotes, paraphrased, added two sources to support the description of the organization he heads, and the fact that he is granted a seat at the Security Council: In Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (2014), game nemesis Jonathan Irons, leader of the world's largest private military company, is granted a seat at the UN Security Council. In a speech to the UN, he declares the organization obsolete due to the world having delegated its problems to him. Pilaz (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be made clear that UNATCO is fictional.
 * ✅. Rephrased and inserted at the end of the first paragraph (as opposed to its own paragraph): The protagonist of Deus Ex, JC Denton, similarly works for the fictional United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition (UNATCO), a militant police force which is prominently featured throughout the game. Pilaz (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Rephrased as: A similar futuristic organization appears in Deus Ex (2000), where protagonist JC Denton works for the fictional United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition (UNATCO), a militant police force prominently featured throughout the game. Pilaz (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Music

 * United Nations later released a second album, featuring the United Nations's cease-and-desist letters on its cover. – I would replace the first "United Nations" with "The band" and remove the second one outright (leaving "[...] featuring the cease-and-desist letters [...]").
 * ✅ Changed to "the band" and "the organization". It now reads: The band later released a second album, featuring the organization's cease and desist letters on its cover. Pilaz (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the band's lead singer stated that the UN official who was behind the lawsuit had been recently fired – what of it? Why are we repeating what appears to be hearsay here?
 * ✅ Removed. Although contextually interesting and properly sourced per WP:NPOV (biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone and WP:SUBSTANTIATE, this sentence does not significantly improve the understanding of the representation of the United Nations in popular culture. Removing it does not degrade the article, so I'm happy to remove it. Pilaz (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary
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:
 * A lot of copyediting is needed, as noted above.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * MOS:WTW non-compliance in particular is a major recurring problem. The WP:LEAD is also way too short.
 * 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:
 * See however my comments above.
 * 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:
 * A cursory look has revealed nothing overtly unreliable, though I would need to take a closer look to be sure.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See my comments above.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but the "Science fiction" section is well beyond what I consider acceptable, as noted above.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * As a quick-to-spot example, the relative lack of prominence of the UN in popular culture (and the possible reasons behind that) discussed by this source (listed in the article's bibliography but not cited in the article itself) is not covered by the article.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * There is quite a bit of material of questionable relevance here. See my comments above.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Opinions are presented as facts in some places, as noted above.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The sole image is public domain.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The sole image is relevant and the caption is suitable (though it needs minor copyediting, as noted above).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I think this was nominated prematurely. There is much to be done before this can be listed as a WP:Good article. It's plain to see that quite a bit of research went into this, but that has unfortunately not translated into a high-quality article. In terms of writing style, it doesn't really look like something that was written for Wikipedia.
 * I think this was nominated prematurely. There is much to be done before this can be listed as a WP:Good article. It's plain to see that quite a bit of research went into this, but that has unfortunately not translated into a high-quality article. In terms of writing style, it doesn't really look like something that was written for Wikipedia.

I'm putting this on hold. The list of issues above is not exhaustive, but a sample of issues I noted while reading through the article. I anticipate that bringing this up to WP:Good article standards will take a lot of time and effort on both our parts (I would have to take a much more thorough look at the sources, for one thing). I have a few different things—both on Wikipedia and off—that I would like to spend time on, so I want to know how to prioritize my time. If you are willing and able to commit large amounts of time and effort to improving this article in the near future, please indicate so and address this first batch of issues I have brought up. Otherwise, I will close this nomination as unsuccessful in about a week or so (in which case the article can of course be re-nominated at any time). TompaDompa (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello TompaDompa, thank you for the GA review. I'll be going through your points in the next few hours, and will ping you again once I have addressed those. Pilaz (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to this, I think the sample of issues that you have highlighted are resolvable, and while I do not know the full intended extent of your review, I will happily work with you through them in a timely manner. I think I anticipate to be able to address the first batch within the next few hours. Pilaz (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

More than a week has passed and several major issues remain unresolved. I'm closing this as unsuccessful. I have added strikethrough markup to resolved issues, replied to some of your comments, and added a couple of additional issues I spotted. I will also add some maintenance templates to the article itself.

The core issue that permeates this article is that it does not read like a Wikipedia article. Rather, it reads more like a secondary source. This is not trivially fixable, because it is not merely a question of individual sentences being problematic. There are several components to this, one being the writing style/language use, the many WP:Words to watch in particular. It comes across as persuasive writing, for lack of a better term. An essay or assignment, perhaps. Another is sources being used to verify facts without proper consideration for context or relevance. As WP:No original research says, References must be cited in context and on topic. I've brought up a couple of examples above, such as the Emmy for The Poppy Is Also a Flower and The role of the UN in the Rwandan genocide and Bosnian genocide, where the UN sent blue helmets but failed to prevent the violence [...]. I would expect sources to be used in this way somewhere where original thought is allowed or even encouraged. Again, perhaps an essay/assignment. Yet another component is the very construction of the article. To a large extent, it consists of examples that neither come from sources on the overarching topic nor serve as examples to illustrate analysis from such sources. In some cases the analysis is absent, in some unsourced, and in some sourced to sources on the examples themselves. I said before that it's plain to see that quite a bit of research went into this, and I stand by that. However, the research appears to have mainly focused on reviewing sources on individual examples, rather than surveying the literature on the overarching topic. The end result is that this article looks more like a source we should be citing for a Wikipedia article than a Wikipedia article in itself.

The article needs to be based on sources on the overarching topic of the article (or at least major aspects thereof—I haven't looked into it in detail, but Sluga and Hajjami seem like adequate sources for this purpose). Sources on the examples (i.e. individual depictions) can absolutely be used to supplement sources on the overarching topic (a good example of how this can be done: North by Northwest is used as an example on the basis of being discussed in a source on the overarching topic, while the source for the sentence Hitchcock was not allowed to film inside the UN building [...] is a source on North by Northwest itself), but they cannot serve as the basis for the article. The essay WP:CARGO explains this fairly well.

This may be renominated at any time (as discussed above, preferably in the "Language and literature" category), though if that is done before the issues above have been resolved it will of course qualify for a WP:QUICKFAIL. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)