Talk:Annie Hall/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 08:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll review this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• According to the toolbox to the right there is one dead link in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• I understand that GA1 reviewer SilkTork had an issue with instability of the article a year ago, but I do not understand the objection to the cast list, which I consider important to film articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

• This is suppose to summarize the article. I find the quotes to be malplaced here. They should be in the main body and summarized here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The quotes are good. They say what makes this film most noteworthy, says what we would want someone to say and it appears in the words of the central artist involved. No better summary of the importance of the film is ever likely to appear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The quotes may be great summaries of the film, but the WP:LEAD is suppose to be a summary of the main body of the article. What in the main body of the article are these summarizing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• I don't feel the article is summarized well. Please make sure that each major section is summarized in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a good criticism. The lede isn't there to reduce later sections by 90% or something. As an overview of the subject, the lede is good, and many editors seem to agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I just went back and reread WP:LEAD. There is a "Relative emphasis" section that says quotations are an exception to the LEAD summarizing the main body. It says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations..." However, this does not resolve the issue in the section above that says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." In order for the lead to be a concise summary of the article, it needs to summarize each section, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish I could agree. The lede summarizes the article very well as it is, mentioning the most important participants and circumstances surrounding the making of the film that are then taken up in more detail later. Everything that appears below the lede doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede. That would be bad writing and encourage the promotion of trivial material to a main point, as we have already seen. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Nstill a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
• I might add BAFTA and even GG to the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • These should link somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Doesn't seem like good advice. The lede is good without cramming in material for no good reason. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Currently the article is 26678 KB of readable prose and the LEAD is only 1701. You can probably add another 1000 KB of readable prose to the LEAD before its length is an issue. 2701 of 27678 would still be less than 10% of the article as well as less than the 3000-3200 range which is a soft upward bound on LEAD size.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Could do many things that would not improve the article. Brevity is a virtue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do we list our objections to the reviewers opinions? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to respond to individual line items in a subsequent line or respond at the bottom to larger scale issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Main body

• In general, I don't have many issues with the first half of the main body. Here are a few though:
  • There are a few dozen redundant links. Please do not repeat links in the article. See WP:LASTNAME where appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Nnot done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • What redundant links? -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I am not sure if the tool that I have in my leftside menu is now universal or if you need to add script to your profile. If you don't see a link for "Highlight duplicate links", then check with the help desk to find out how to get that capability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There are some short paragraphs that need to be merged or expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Nnot done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • The idea of a paragraph is to group material on the same subject together. Short paragraphs are fine, long paragraphs are fine. It depends on the material. Asking for longer paragraphs is poor advice. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
        • I think that there are about 5 paragraphs that need to be merged or expanded. I have arbitrarily chosen 350 characters as the length at which a paragraph seems too short to me. I am unable to find any part of WP:MOS that describes paragraphs. Lets just look at the paragraphs individually and see what each issue is:
          1. "It was first released on Blu-ray on January 24, 2012 alongside Allen's 1979 film Manhattan.[39] Both releases include the films' original theatrical trailer"- is an obscenely short paragraph. Can't we merge or expand this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
          2. "Since its release, other romantic comedies..." can't we merge this to the beginning of the "He says he has repeatedly..." paragraph. Then the paragraph would say it inspired a lot of things but did not result in a sequel.
          3. 1st and last paragraph of the plot - Please reevaluate and consider merging or expanding.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
          4. last two paragraphs of production - Please reevaluate and consider merging or expanding.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
          5. Middle paragraph of Style and technique - Please reevaluate and consider merging or expanding.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a paragraph consists of material that covers roughly the same topic. For that reason, some paragraphs are long and some are short. There is definitely no number of characters at which a well written paragraph that imparts information to the reader becomes too short. The only reason to merge paragraphs -- the only reason -- is that they cover the same topic. Checking the web for a couple minutes you will find this: "A paragraph is a group of sentences that fleshes out a single idea." "A paragraph is a group of sentences that develop a single point, idea or topic." "A group of closely related sentences that develop a central idea." That is what a paragraph is. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the five paragraphs you mention. They're all good. In fact, your bad advice has made the plot summary more difficult to understand. I will try to correct that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Release

• Use a proper inflation adjustment that does not obsolesce. E.g. ($46.4 million in 2024 dollars)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant use an the template that I use in the line above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with the edit I made. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    • It has two problems. First, the way you did it without the template will obsolesce. Second you have the current figure separated from the original figure. It should read like earned $XXX ($YYY in 2014 dollars).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Please merge or expand the final paragraph of this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Images

• The last two images need {{personality rights}}--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried adding it but it came up as a red link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. That template only exists on commons. You can't do it for the Keaton one which is just a fair use image at WP. Go to the commons page rather than the WP page for the Allen pic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Nnot done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm confused by what this actually means/requires? -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
      • It means go to the image desciption page at commons and add this tag.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• Those images also need revised WP:CAPTIONs. Only full sentences end in periods.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nnot done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The sentences with periods are complete sentences. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
      • The last one seems to be a full sentence without proper ending punctuation. The second last one has two periods but only has one complete sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have put this on hold.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Nominator has stated that he will not be looking at this review until Thursday. This is no problem. I will be monitoring progress and will reevaluate it in 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • NoD'ohnuts requested that I come take a look at this and I am not sure why. Almost none of my concerns have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Some of your concerns are misplaced. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Strong recommend withdrawing this for the time being. It needs a fair bit of work and this has become a stale nom. Fail it @TonyTheTiger: if you have to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have Failed this nomination. If you feel that the current version of the article should have passed you are free to seek reconsideration at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)