Talk:Loose Change/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Overview

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film). Is there a reason this article does not follow MOSFILMS, or adheres to it very loosely? Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). The lead does not mention any criticism or appraisal of the film and is poorly written. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Better, but would prefer to see few citations since these claims are already sourced in the body, but this is a matter of editorial preference and does not alter the outcome of the review. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Y Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout). See structure of MOSFILMS above. Same concerns. See also section not needed at all. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections). There are several ways to salvage the content in the "In other media" section. This needs work. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Y Appears to have been corrected. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Citing sources. In a controversial article like this, the sourcing has to be really tight. This isn't, and some sources are poorly formatted (see 42) and many are missing necessary fields that tell the reader if this is reliable or not, primary or secondary, or even worth checking up on. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • N Per Hekerui, sources are still problematic. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Waiting for response from Hekerui per recent comments and changes. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:Loose-change-american-coup .jpg is described as "fair use", but lacks a rationale and is strangely tagged as cc-by-sa-3.0. Not good. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • N Page says "© 2009 Microcinema International, All rights reserved. © 2009 Collective Minds Media Company". Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Y Fixed with rationale. - RoyBoy 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Loose Change (2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
  • I've never seen multiple dates used this way in a film article. I'm not entirely sure, and I may ask for advice from the films project, but I assume we only list the first date of initial release, and mention later in the lead, the other dates of release. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• received widespread attention after Loose Change 2nd Edition was featured on a Binghamton, New York local FOX affiliate, WICZ-TV (FOX 40).[1]
  • You mean, it received widespread attention in North America when it aired on Fox. Also, it isn't clear if it became popular on the internet before or after this, so please clarify the Vanity Fair (2006) source regarding its status as an "Internet blockbuster". Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• There does not appear to be any summary of the reviews or criticism in the lead section. Please add it. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Since the lead is a summary of the article, it does not require multiple citations after each statement. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

History

• This section should follow MOS:FILMS structure, namely production, development, pre-production, filming, post-production, or any variation. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Revisions

• It is unclear if the listed information is actually sourced. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Impact

• This is considered a "reception" section in MOSFILMS. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Recut contents

• This type of "plot" section should appear as section 1 in most film articles. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Airings

• Generally part of a "release" section in MOS:FILMS. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

In other media

• Much of this content can be merged into relevant sections, such as criticism, airings, and release. There is no need for this section. Viriditas (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

References

• At least five dead links. Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Problems with basic MOS listed above. Concerns about prose raised by Hekerui.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Issues with sources not yet resolved.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   After several weeks, article still has maintenance tags and issues with reliable sources and external links, prose, MOS, and is not structured like a film article. More reliable sources are available, but are not in use. Recommend following MOS films guideline in the future to increase readability. Please trim external links and format citations for pub date and description of source. Because of the concerns I've raised above and those raised below by several editors, I am failing this article at this time. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

www.nowpublic.com

www.nowpublic.com[1] doesn't appear to be a reliable source. I've tagged it with a {RS} tag.[2] Also, it doesn't seem to support the statement that the film received widespread attention after being shown on WICZ-TV. Perhaps another source exists to support this content? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Y Fixed by AQFK. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional comment

The sources are questionable: thebestpageintheuniverse.net is not a reliable source, the article uses a copyrighted clip posted on truveo.com as a source, which is not okay per WP:ELNEVER, internetdetectives.biz is used while the page was moved to emptv.com - which has no clear notability and looks like just a blog. 911research.wtc7.net is not a reliable source. Also several paragraphs are short and choppy and the section "Recut contents" suffers from overlinking. This article should not be promoted in its current form. Hekerui (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remove everything "questionable" and place it here or on talk. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While I by no means consider them great sources, within the context they are used I would consider them sufficient. wtc7 is notable and reliable enough IMO as a 9-11 Truth perspective, while thebestpageintheuniverse.net is indeed could be removed, but I lean towards keeping it for flavor. He does have a book, but concede I'm unaware of the level of sales required for that to confer meaningful notability. Overlinking corrected, looking into paragraphs, help would be appreciated on that. - RoyBoy 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

911research.wtc7.net is usable as a primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

internetdetectives.biz links were not yet fixed and I'm not happy about the unformatted sources and the formatting of the other sources. Reading this again the prose is not all that good, paragraphs beginning with "this", many filler words, an external link in the article body, and I suggest the article be failed until someone copyedits it, at least. Hekerui (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm leaning towards agreement with Hekerui. RoyBoy, if you have time to put into it, I can leave it on hold longer if you like. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, this topic is clearly notable, but might fail the requirements of WP:FILMNOT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with FILMNOT, and I don't think this topic fails it, but I would encourage you to contact the films project and ask for their input. I already contacted Erik and asked him to comment, but I think he's on vacation. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I referring to this:
"The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."

No, I don't think it has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

"The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:"

• "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release."

Possibly, not sure.

• "The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release."

Nope.

• "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."

Doubtful.

• "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema."

Doubtful.

"The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking."

Nope.

"The film was selected for preservation in a national archive."

Nope.

"The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

Nope. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is because of statements like this, that I'm probably not going to pass or fail but ask for a second opinion, because this review was doomed before I even got here. If you think the article isn't notable, you should make your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, not during a GA review. Before deciding to help out with the GA backlog, I had not even heard of this film, as I tend not to follow the conspiracy movements all that much. I think we all agree that an amateur film described as the "calling card" for the 9/11 Truth movement is going to come under a lot of scrutiny. AQFK, I'm only trying to review this film for GA, which means, there are assumptions of notability inherent in its status as a GA candidate. The film has received a lot of critical reviews, so I don't think criteria 1 is an issue. It was not released as a studio film, so it would not be expected to have "nationally known critics" reviewing it. Rather, we would expect to find internet, conspiracy, and documentary critics discussing it, which is what we see when we look at the literature. For example, we see an article by Lev Grossman in TIME[3], a book by Mark Fenster of the University of Florida Law School (Chapter 7, Conspiracy Theories. University of Minnesota Press. 2008), and a case study of the film as documentary by Jane Chapman of the University of Lincoln (Issues in Contemporary Documentary (2009)) This is only a very small sample, and I suggest you look at the references to the film in reliable sources, they are quite numerous. I can't see how anyone could possibly question its notability. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas: I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood me. I agree the film is notable. I'm just remarking on the irony that it probably doesn't meeting WP:FILMNOT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While I knew that practically speaking, someone saying it still brings a smile to my face. - RoyBoy 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

To the new reviewer: Please read the article and review the above concerns:

1. Is the article reasonably well written? Is the prose acceptable for GA? Does the structure of the article comply with the MOS?
2. Is the article factually accurate and verifiable? Are the references properly formatted and are the citations reliable?

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I worked my way through part of the article, tidying up and tagging as I went along, to get a feel for the prose. It is mainly clear, though could be tightened up in places to present more clearly to the general reader the nature of the topic. I haven't read it all, though I got the impression it doesn't quite pass the GA prose criteria at the moment, though could do so with a decent copyedit.
  • The structure is acceptable, though WP:Layout does suggest to avoid very short and very long sections. I don't think that Recut contents and Criticism are too long, but they might be rather too detailed, and so might be failing 3 (b); while Release and Reception are quite short, and the juxtaposition of short and long sections gives an unbalanced feel to the article. When these sections are very short, it is common to put them together.
  • I haven't read enough of the article or the sources to comment on "factually accurate", though I noticed that there is strong reliance on questionable sources. I also noticed that a number of challengable statements were not sourced, and that the wording and amount of material, especially in the Recut contents section, tended toward giving an appearance of presenting an argument - the paragraph on the Pentagon is very detailed and presents weighted sentences such as "In particular it points out the size of the hole in the Pentagon caused by the crash, examining a lack of debris and landscape damage seemingly inconsistent with prior airliner crashes."
  • The formatting of the cites is within GA criteria.
  • I would not be comfortable passing the article as it stands. The WP:Lead needs building so it can act as a stand alone summary of the article. The prose would benefit from copyediting. The sections would benefit from balancing. Material needs to be examined for neutrality and undue weight and trimmed if neccessary. I would like to see more reliable sources used in place of the questionable sources. And the article needs examining carefully for unsourced contentious statements and quotes. I would put it on hold for seven days to give contributors a chance to make those improvements, or challenge my viewpoints, and would be willing to extend the hold as long as reasonable progress was being made. SilkTork *^YES! 18:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)