Talk:The Royal Tenenbaums/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seiya (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.Y
Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all in-line citations are from reliable sources.Y
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.Y
Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail Y
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.Y
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Y

Outcome: Really very good, maybe even great work from the user. A lot of solid sources and extensive coverage from many aspects. A lot of effort has been invested into this article. A good article, at a minimum, and maybe it will even reach FA status soon.--Seiya (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call for second review

On holdNot sure this was a proper review. Will look this over and have asked for a re-review....but zero comments is not what we are looking for here at all. Does this reviewer have a history here? Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions -Moxy (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, this was Seiya's first GA review according to her Contributions list. Please see User talk:Seiya#Royal Tenenbaums and User talk:Ribbet32#The Royal Tenenbaums for other posts regarding the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given it a close look, but the images stood out to me during a quick scroll. They're all right-aligned, which I think makes it look a little bland. I prefer to switch them left-right. That's not a make-or-break criticism, but I also question the number and content of the images. Do we really need two images of cosplayers doing the same characters? Why is the image of Nico presented 13 paragraphs higher than her first mention in the prose? That's 14 inches on my monitor with the window at full screen. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy's comments are confusing as to whether he's the second reviewer; he'll look at it ("Will look this over") but he's asking (someone else?) for a re-review? Anyway, I've edited based on Argento Surfer's suggestions. Hopefully will get that 2nd opinion Ribbet32 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: @Argento Surfer: Never heard back from you. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My image concerns have been satisfied. I'll let Moxy respond about the 2nd reviewer since he's the one who raised the issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are we looking for a second opinion on? Images look alright to me. AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I think there's a fear that the original review was—perhaps—just slightly superficial and lacking in the depth an article of this size warrants. My take, anyway. No disrespect to the reviewer of course, merely belt and braces. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: @Serial Number 54129: The original reviewer originally made no reference to the Good article criteria. He/she later did so, but Moxy reopened the nom for a "second opinion" and promptly bolted, and refuses to respond to any questions. Ribbet32 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Mike Christie to give this a second review, and he should be able to do so sometime this week. He has done an excellent job when I've asked him in the past, so I think we'll all be happy with the results if we wait just a little longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to get started either tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer

told with a literary narrative: what does this mean? From later in the article I see it refers to the prologue/chapters/epilogue structure; I'd either mention that in the lead or cut the comment.

Tweaked.

which features an extensive soundtrack: "extensive" is an odd word to use here, and it seems like a non sequitur. Do you just mean that there are a lot of songs included? I think you could cut this from the lead, unless there are specific details about the soundtrack worth mentioning in the lead.

Tweaked.

Royal Tenenbaum explains to his three children, Chas, Margot, and Richie: suggest making this something like "to his three adolescent children" or "three teenage children", whichever is more accurate.

I don't think they were teens, but "adolescent" appears acceptable.

Hackman was hesitant about accepting the role, citing his lack of understanding of, or association with Royal: What does "association" mean here?

Hackman and Royal never played pool together. Nah, I kid. Tweaked.

Journalist Jesse Fox Mayshark wrote that, like the similarly-titled The Magnificent Ambersons, Anderson's story follows an older mother considering remarriage, creating a stir in the family, which Professor Claire Perkins says has minor class and racial elements, with Chas refusing to call Henry by his first name and Royal calling Henry an "old black buck". This is unclear -- is Perkins commenting on The Magnificent Ambersons or on the film?

Fair point. Tweaked.

with academic Daniel Cross Turner contemplating the word "nostalgia" literally meaning returning home in pain: not ideal phrasing; "contemplating" isn't a natural word to introduce an opinion. How about "noting that"?

Tweaked. I believe "noted" is a WP:WORDSTOWATCH.

What does "depressed psychology" mean?

Tweaked.

followed by the tone of J.D. Salinger's contemplation of "disillusionment". I don't understand this.

Tweaked.

Why is it relevant to mention when it doubled Rushmore's gross? And I see you also compare it to other Wes Anderson films' grosses. I think you could cut this; the final sentence of the section places the total box office relative to his other films.

Cut back on this, though the comparisons are used in the sources.

Not a requirement for GA, which only requires the prose to be clear and concise, but the critical response suffers extensively from the "A said B" problem; see WP:RECEPTION. The "Themes" section has some of the same issue.

The essay suggests a single variation of "A of B", which I use now and then, and I've added one here. I'm not sure what else to do without risking accusations of WP:WEASEL (removing critics' names. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but "a step-city, or a city-in-law," but that "the communal oddity" gradually won him over: two consecutive "but"s.

That's it for the text. I'll take a look at the sources tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

What makes the following reliable sources?
- splitsider.com
- marksimonson.com

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitsider is included in Google News and belongs to Vulture.com, [1] aka New York magazine. Marksimonson.com is operated by Mark Simonson, who is notable in font design.

Thanks Mike Christie Ribbet32 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing; everything has been addressed. A couple of responses to some comments above: you're right that "noted" is a word to watch, but if it introduces something that's unambiguously factual (in this case the etymology of nostalgia) I think it's fine, since the problem with the word is that it can imply something is a fact when it's really just an opinion. Re "A said B": I think it's often OK to remove the names of reviewers, so long as the citation makes it clear where the opinion is coming from -- WP:WEASEL does say that so long as the opinions are accurately reflected there's no issue. My main point in referring to "A said B" was that the rhythm gets very dull and hard to read. Not a requirement for GA, though, just a comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]