# Talk:A Month in the Country (film)

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Month in the Country (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Production section, un-link "August 18, 1986", per here.
Half-check. Alright, the date was un-linked, but you would have to fix this ---> "August 18th 1968" to ---> "August 18, 1986", per here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've delinked the dates (I don't usually link them myself, I think somebody else must have!) Bob talk 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Bob who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Bob talk 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this meets the requirements at WP:FILMNFI, in that there is a poster to illustrate the film, and a screenshot which is discussed in a production section. Bob talk 07:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

An editor is edit-warring to add an uncited claim that Film4 was involved in the production of this film. First, he claimed that the film is listed at the Film4 article, so that makes it OK — even though Wikipedia disallows other Wikipedia articles to be used as reference citations. When told this, the editor falsely claimed that Film4 was mentioned already in the article and cited by the newspaper The Daily Telegraph. Neither of these claims are true: It is NOT stated in the article, nor at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3637580/How-I-found-Branaghs-lost-movie.html. I've asked this editor not to make dishonest edits and to please discuss things on the talk page. --~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 

No, that's nonsense, keep calm. The article states "Funding for the film was scarce, and it eventually fell to Euston Films (a subsidiary of Thames Television) and Channel Four Films". The Channel Four Films links to "Film4 Productions". The reference provided states "It had been a co-production between Channel 4 and Euston Films, a subsidiary of Thames Television that had vanished long ago." This isn't an edit war, you're just wrong. Stephenjh (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The opening credits of old VHS prints of the film state "Film Four International in association with P.F.H. Ltd present a Euston Films Production". Bob talk 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's pretty obvious to anyone both from the article and the reference given (or from a cursory google search). Film4's own website lists it as a Film4 production! http://www.film4.com/reviews/1987/month-in-the-country-a I can't revert yet due to the '3R rule'. But unless someone else does I'll have to, hopefully no more dummies are spat. Stephenjh (talk) 05:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
So, basically, you're citing sources, which is exactly what I asked for — and which makes your insult-flinging of the word "nonsense", well, nonsensical. Incidentally, virtually no American would have any idea that "Channel Four" and "Film4" are in any way related, any more so than 20th Century Fox and Fox Feature Syndicate ... which, by the way, are not. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading this where the "insult-flinging" begins... with you referring to me as a 'liar' by stating I was making false claims and dishonest edits. I gave you 'Thanks' for your edit (even though I reverted it). Had you read the article properly and paid more attention to detail - before your poor and unnecessary deletion - you would have saved everyone time, and yourself some 'face'. A little less tetchiness and more courtesy on your part as an editor might go a long way. Stephenjh (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
My face is fine. You were the one who made misleading statements in an edit summary: As I pointed out, Film Four was not mentioned in the articles you cited. But whatever. Go ahead and take a swipe and I'll let you have the last word--Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You made a bad edit and accused me of 'misleading' and 'falsely claiming'. This is simply untrue. A little more civility on your part would have seen this matter dealt with between the two of us in a far more appropriate way. Have a nice day. Stephenjh (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the critical quotations, it is obvious that whomever placed them was oblivious to whatever thematic plot-structure elements were contained within the movie.  It is essential to readers' understanding for the critical comments to make sense.  Therefore, there should be either a discussion of the various "themes" within the plot, or a much better collection of "critical quotes" because the existing quotes are shear nonsense--with the exception of Desmond Ryan's criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.117.192 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)