Jump to content

Talk:Akeelah and the Bee/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 07:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Lead
  • "important" in "it had important lessons" is borderline POV in its current state, a more neutral way to say this would be to say the cast members felt it had important lessons
I guess it's not POV as it's not stated as a fact but as commentary by "Cast members"
I know what you mean, but it's almost as if the cast members are deeming it fact Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • "a bright 11-year-old who never makes errors on her spelling tests"..... "bright" is not the most neutral description, and I don't think we can say she "never makes errors" in spelling given the film's later events
I guess "bright" on in-fiction is not a problem but I've made some changes
Better, but "spelling enthusiast" or something similar would be more neutral than "who has good ability on spelling bees" Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the use of "easily" in "ends up winning easily"
There's not an incentive nor motivation to participate on such tournaments, so it's easily for Akeelah; it's not necessary, though, so I've removed
  • "After the party, Tanya is depressed at her husband's death and concerned about her daughter's grades and frequent truancy, so she forbids Akeelah from participating in the upcoming state bee"..... let's keep the focus on Tanya's and Akeelah here
Why? The death of her husband is an important part of Tanya's character as you can see in "Cast"
Because the scene has more to do with Akeelah and her mother rather than the father Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can you measure if it's more related to her husband or Akeelah? AFIK, it's a main reason for her being stressed that moment. In addition, it's also a good time to introduce Akeelah's father as in the next sentence we mention that Akeelah fakes her father's signature. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If including that detail, I would at least change it to "Tanya becomes depressed over her husband's death" and split this into two sentences after "truancy". I don't like the use of "so". Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the meantime" is not really needed
Okay.
  • "and knuckles down to prepare in earnest"..... inappropriate tone and too much detail, just say "to prepare"
Okay.
  • "and her oldest brother"..... let's mention him by name here
Okay.
  • "throw the competition" doesn't seem like the most encyclopedic term, try "intentionally lose"
Okay.
  • "win-at-all-costs attitude"..... while certainly eager to win, I think it would be better to say "demands for victory" or "demands to win"
I've tried "obsession to win."
Looks good Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • The castings for Kiana, Devon, Derrick T, and Mr. Chu need citations. Also, how come they don't have commentary while the other roles do?
No, it doesn't need. As the plot, the film itself (the credits, in this case) is enough to proof it. Well, the other roles have no commentary simply because their respective actors gave no interviews to great media... For aesthetically's sake, I can change to something similar to The Avengers (2012 film) and gather the minor roles. What do you think?
You could potentially add director's commentary for the other roles, and it doesn't make sense to cite some roles while not citing others. MOS:FILM says plot/synopsis sections don't need citations (especially through WP:FILMPLOT), though doesn't say cast sections are exempt. The Avengers and X-Men: The Last Stand are good examples to follow for cast sections. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good but I don't have access to the DVD's commentary. And what I'm sourcing is not the role itself but the commentary on the casting or the character. It's as far as usual you might think to do not source the cast i.e Coonskin (film), 300 (film), War of the Worlds (2005 film), Children of Men. Assuming that's even not required to give more the name of the actor and it's role, anything added is gain. About Avengers and The Last Stand, it was exactly what I suggested: to give commentary for the major roles and gather the minor roles in prose (and if you look closer you'll notice that not everyone is sourced in this prose paragraph on both... the only sourced are those whose are not credited but were later revealed). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adding commentary isn't a requirement for cast lists, but citations most certainly are per WP:Verifiability. The layout structure for commentary in those is fine, though I'll probably have a closer look at their sourcing later on. A good example of a cast list without commentary is The Little Mermaid (1989 film). You can use production notes for this. I personally recommend all or none have commentary. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've showed you (and you also showed me) examples of GAs and FAs that doesn't source it. It's almost redudant to the film's credits. We cant contact WT:FILM if necessary. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was showing how roles had citations, though didn't get the chance to fully spotcheck them (which was an error on my part). For now, I'll say use production notes to source the roles, and raising a discussion on WT:FILM is a good idea afterwards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, ok. I did it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
  • This section should go after "Production"
I'd prefer to. However, MOS:FILM puts it first (though I'm not sure it's a determination).
My mistake. In that case, though, Sid Ganis should be linked here rather than in production. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having attended at USC School of Cinematic Arts and worked at a youth center in South Los Angeles, Atchison could insert in the film experiences he had in the neighborhood" → "After attending USC School of Cinematic Arts and worked at a youth center in South Los Angeles, Atchison incorporated his experiences from the neighborhood into the film"
Okay.
  • "Ganis described it"..... Sid or Nancy?
Good catch.
Production
Writing
  • "The seed of the idea was planted"..... inappropriate tone
Reworded.
Title
  • Is this section really needed?
What would you suggest?
I would scrap it altogether Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in doubt now but I think one of the first questions some who comes to this article want to know is "what the hell is Akeelah?" Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer would be "Akeelah is the title character" :P Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a bit reluctant but I do feel it's trivial. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
Critical reaction
  • "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reports an 84%" → "Rotten Tomatoes reported an 84%"
Not everyone knows what RT is and it's better to give it a brief introduction than obligate the reader to click on its wikilink
See also
  • This section should be removed as Bee Season has nothing to do with the film
Well, it's not that relevant. But it certainly has something to do: both centers on spelling bees, on a girl, and on a tutor-apprentice relation
Similar structure ≠ having anything to do with subject. The two are not affiliated with one another. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • About.com (FN's 13 and 16) and New York Post (FN73) are not reliable. I'm also skeptical about the following:
  • "BlackFilm.com" (FN4)
  • "RadioFree.com" (FN's 7 and 9)
  • "The Star Scoop" (FN18)
  • "DallasBlack.com" (FN19)
  • "Mania.com" (FN33)
  • "ComingSoon.net" (FN's 34 and 54)
  • "Black Voices" (FN74)
  • "HollywoodJesus"
Wow, why NYP isn't reliable? It's cited for both RT and Metacritic, in addition to being a well-respected newspaper that exists for two centuries.
Except for Mania.com, ComingSoon.net, Black Voices and HollywoodJesus, all other sources are used for interviews so I think it's not a big deal.
Black Voices is part of AOL
HollywoodJesus.com is only hosting Akeelah and the Bee production notes by Lionsgate (you can see that I hide the original source using <!-- -->)
ComingSoon.net is already a well-established sourced, I guess. In addition of being part of CraveOnline, it's widely used in Wikipedia, including on GAs and a FA.
Part of Demand Media, Mania.com is a RS for Anime and Manga project (not sure if it's enough because well it's not an A&M article...)
On the contrary, NYP is notorious for fraud and gossip, similar to The Daily Mail in the UK. There are much more reliable NY newspapers, i.e. The New York Times and even New York Daily News. Age of the paper is completely irrelevant, and so is whether RT or Metacritic list them. AOL-affiliated works tend not to be very reliable either, so I'd remove "Black Voices". I'm confident you can find something better than The Star Scoop (I was previously advised not to use it for GA's, despite any interview-like vibe). Not sure why Hollywood Jesus is listed in "references" when it is never used as an inline citation. Could perhaps go under "external links" if used at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the first complaining about NYP (which is by instance used on The Avengers (2012 film)). But let's assume NYP is not a RS, you might consider I'm using it for an opinion, not a fact (as Avengers is), and that Kyle Smith is a well-recognized critic. I'm not sure about the unreliability of AOL-affiliated nor The Star Scoop unless you show me some project or great group of people decided it, not just some user. I'm not confident I can find a replacement for both (mainly The Star Scoop as it's an "Exclusive Interview""). I can remove The Star Scoop without any great loss, and try to find a substitute for Black Voices but I'd like a second opinion. And, hm, HollywoodJesus.com is probably one of the most used sources on the article... (everytime I cite "Production 2006", I'm citing it [see Sfn]) Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is not so much the critic as it is the publication. If Smith had the review on his website or another publication, I'd say use that. Bad publication = bad use for GA. As for Hollywood Jesus, not sure how I didn't see the separation within reference section. I know many sources have "interview" in the title, but that sometimes gives a misleading sense of reliability (I learned this from a combination of input at Talk:Katy Perry/GA4 and Template:Did you know nominations/Katy Perry). See what alternatives are available for Black Voices and Star Scoop, even if not replicas. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the publication matter? Publications' reliability depends on their authors anyway. If we know the author is reliable, why is there a problem? Tezero (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it's because New York Post is known to often be quite untrustworthy (as I previously indicated). It is often known for a reputation as a "gossip rag". Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Because its writers make it that way. We even allow tweets from celebrities as reliable information; why should an article penned for a different site by a reliable writer be any different? Tezero (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure how it works, but Twitter is a generally discouraged source when other high-quality publications are available. This admittedly surprised me at first. I've often seen tweets removed quite promptly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've seen them used all over the place without controversy. I haven't read most of this discussion; are other high-quality publications available for the desired information? Tezero (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it hadn't been for the fact that others would vomit over tweets and remove them on sight (there is also WP:TWITTER), I wouldn't have a problem. However, many experienced editors have told me to avoid using Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. whenever possible. If this was at FAC, I have little doubt its use would be frowned upon, so I'll save such trouble by advising better sources now while possible. I know this can be confusing, but it's apparently how things work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'. A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers." I have the two qualities required: a) attributed to the author (Smith) b) published in a mainstream newspaper (NYP). For The Star Scoop, I don't lose too much on removing that Garey did "about six auditions". For Black Voices, however, I couldn't find any replacement that states, a) Bassett was nominated for BET Awards b) in 2007 c) for her performance on Akeelah and the Bee. All I could find was that Bassett was nominated for the 2007 BET but without a mention to the film. BV was the only (except IMDb and Wikipedia [not RSes]) to do it. Nevertheless, I'd like a second opinion; I'm not sure the Wikiproject Film is enough or if the WP:RSN would be better... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, but for now will say remove it and then raise a discussion on WP:RSN. I've seen many instances of questioned sources being discouraged even for opinions. Instinct told me it would be better to play safe and not include sources often deemed untrustworthy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind to request a second opinion, SNUGGUMS (if so, you might indicate where are [preferably] looking for someone used on editing film-related articles and/or who knows about RSes)? I can remove The Star Scoop, but I wasn't able to find a replacement for BV as I stated above, and while not indispensable I think NYP is helpful and that it pass on what's a reliable source. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After giving this some thought, I'm going to pass the nomination. You've done quite well. However, be prepared for further source scrutiny if you try to make this FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
  • Well-written?: Some rewriting is needed
  • Verifiable?: 13 unreliable/questionable references and a few bits are missing citations
  • Broad in coverage?: Looks good
  • Neutral?: Not exactly
  • Stable?: All recent work has only been to construct the article
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?: Licensing is OK and images are all relevant, but the photo captions are too long- I'd only use the first sentences of each caption and instead use the rest in article body where appropriate
  • Pass or Fail?: I'll put this on hold for seven days. The article has the potential to be GA, but needs some work beforehand.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akeelah_and_the_Bee/GA1&oldid=1089040826"