Talk:Semi-Tough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Semi-Tough was a nominee for Social sciences and society good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

Contents

[edit] Notes

[edit] Bismark or Bismarck ?

Various sources that all fit WP:RS use both interchangeably. My thanks to Michael Devore (talk · contribs) to just picking "Bismark" and making it uniform throughout the article. It looks much nicer. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


1:

  • Numerous inconsistencies, e.g. use of “est” and “E.S.T.”; indefinite article used sporadically before “B.E.A.T.”; plot summaries refer to various people using either real life last name, real life first name or character name (need to pick one naming “scheme” and use it consistently throughout).
  • Use of weasel words, e.g. “some publications”
  • Numerous areas lacking punctuation and proper tense. I would hope they’d be obvious, but let me know if you need me to correct them.
  • Awkward phrasing and consequent lack of brevity, e.g. “Shake gains self-confidence…“ (as opposed to confidence in someone else?), “…and other new age movements of the time period…”, “Pro football stars of the time”, etc.

2:

  • Numerous statements require citations, e.g. revenue in infobox (the same information is referenced later in the article, but the first such instance should have the citation), “she is worn out from Bismark's ‘sadistic abuse, pious drivel and sheer double talk’”, “…Bert Convy was contacted by a number of est followers…”, “Valerie Harper, known in Hollywood as a devoted student of Werner Erhard”, etc.
  • NOR violations, e.g. “On the average, the film was seen as a goofy, endearing romantic comedy, with a sardonic, cheeky side that poked fun at Human potential movements of the 1970s”, “This is perhaps reminiscent of a scene from Semi-Tough, …”, “includes a thinly-veiled”, etc.

3:

  • Production section does not really address production, but, rather, adaptation and preparation.
  • “Adaptation” paragraph starts with “Burt Reynolds knew he wanted the role of Billy Clyde Puckett”. How was he introduced to it?
  • Last sentence of second paragraph pertains to “the climactic scene at the end of the film”, yet is followed by an additional paragraph of plot summary. Chronology should be respected.
  • Serious clarity problems, e.g. “He later intervenes when she is about to marry Shake, against her best intentions”, “’Movagenics,’ which TIME Magazine referred to in its review as both a cult and a new faith” (review of the movie or Movagenics?), “rescues Barbara Jane from both B.E.A.T. and her impending marriage to Shake” (did she need to be rescued from the marriage? Did she not truly love Shake? She took B.E.A.T. for him…), etc.
  • Items of questionable importance, e.g. Lotte Lenya's character "Clara Pelf" mentioned in “parodies” section but not in summary? Similarly, “parodies” section mentions “minister's capital gains tax advice to Friedrich Bismark at Shake's wedding”, but this is not in the summary.
  • Plot contains unnecessary detail, e.g. “While participating in the training, Billy Clyde is shown coping with the seminar rules forbidding going to the bathroom during the training”

4:

  • Negative reactions to the film are not adequately articulated, e.g. only the positive aspect of a critical review is expanded upon (the WSJ review), the mention of a negative review is followed immediately by “however” or “yet” (also an MoS violation) and then more positive information, etc.
  • Reaction of “cults”/”new-age religions” is not mentioned beyond their contacting of people involved with the movie. Were they upset, assumed, etc. with the film?

6:

  • Convy photo is only a closely-cropped headshot; it does not meaningfully illustrate the film other than to portray the actor; a free use alternative of Convy could probably be obtained with some reasonable sleuthing.
  • Valerire Harper photo is not appropriate for the article. Lotte Lenya photo is also questionable, given article’s aforementioned failure to have established her importance in the film.

General:

Substantial revisions are necessary for this to be considered a good article. Please let me know if you need elaboration or assistance. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing points from GA review

Thanks for the feedback. I will do my best to address the above points, and note them here, below. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC).