# Talk:Obvious Child

This review is transcluded from Talk:Obvious Child/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2015, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
Lede intro sect - lede intro sect is a bit skimpy. For this size article I'd say at least three, maybe four, paragraph of four sentences each. Try expanding intro sect so that, per WP:LEAD, the article can function adequately as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents.
For first appearance of each character in the Plot sect, please add in parentheses the first instance, the name of the actor portraying that character.
Reception - for this sect, lots of quotes. Try trimming down size of quotes, and/or paraphrasing some of the quotes. Try to reduce by fifty percent.
2. Verifiable?: Please add column in Accolades sect called "Ref(s)". Then move all the citations to that column. This is how it's done for Featured Lists. Also, I added one citation needed tag to Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival in that sect.
3. Broad in coverage?:
Article does indeed cover the major aspects. It conforms to WP:MOSFILM quite well. That being said - however, this is the prime sort of article that could do with another sect. See WP:MOSFILM, maybe a sect like Themes would be good to add to the article. It's been over a year since the film's release date -- I bet you could find some scholarly academic peer-reviewed commentary on Themes where scholars discuss and try to place the film within a wider context of society, characterize it to a particular genre, discuss themes, stuff like that.
Last paragraph of Reception sect. Was there anything more substantive to this negative reaction from the fringe groups? If so, maybe this could be broken out into an Impact sect, with info on how the film itself impacted society. If the secondary source coverage doesn't cover this in great depth, no worries then.
4. Neutral point of view?: I see you've added some negative criticism of the film from fringe sources, that's at least good to include these, because that's noteworthy news. But please consider searching Rotten Tomatoes and including a few tidbits from some negative reviews from more mainstream reviewer sources from that eleven percent of bad reviews, I'd say no more than three of the negative ones.
5. Stable? Apart from some stray IP edits, article edit history and article talk page history have been stable going back several months. No issues here.
6. Images?: Free-use image is good. Fair use image at File:Obvious Child poster.jpg - please flesh out the fair use rationale, better example at File:Loham film poster.jpg.
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, thanks for the review and sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you. I think I've addressed most of your concerns. I haven't added sections on Themes or Impact since I honestly don't think there's enough coverage to warrant either. It's a relatively small film that hasn't been the subject of any scholarly writings that I could find, and there's no indication that it had a significant influence on society or politics apart from sparking a brief and small bit of debate among bloggers on both sides of the abortion issue. 97198 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


### Reevaluation by GA Reviewer
Article looks much better overall, great work.
Have you had a chance to just at least look at the instructions linked to from suggestion 3, above, and consider if you wish to follow through -- as an optional suggestion, not mandatory, but just something to consider, as a way to help out with the backlogs and assist the Wikipedia community by paying it forward ?
Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Obvious+Child&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - shows violation unlikely - great job here.
External Links checker = http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Obvious_Child = shows at least nine (9) problem links. Problem defined as = any value other than a "0" or "200" or even a "200" with a comment next to it. You can fix these by archiving to Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT fields archivedate and archiveurl.
Please change sect header Plot to Plot synopsis.
Could mention a couple specif publications' reviews in lede perhaps.
Fair use rationale image page looks quite good.
Thank you, looks much better so far, — Cirt (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never used the Wayback Machine before and I'm not finding it too easy – for instance when I try to archive [1] (which opens fine for me), I get the message "This url is not available on the live web or can not be archived." For [2] (which also opens for me in full even though Checklinks says "Registration required"), I get "This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." For [3] (which, again, I can see in full), the Wayback Machine gives me an archived page asking for a login. For [4], it gives me "Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt." I managed to archive a few sites but the success to failure ratio was pretty low. Is it usually this hit-and-miss?
Can you tell me why you want "Plot" changed to "Plot synopsis"? The former is used almost universally in film articles and there is nothing in MOS:FILM to suggest the later is preferable. As for mentioning specific reviews in the lead, that seems like detail overkill to me and very open to bias as far as choosing which ones to highlight so I'd rather not. Re: reviewing articles at GAN, I've done many in the past and will do more in the future but I don't like to review articles outside of my areas of knowledge/interest. 97198 (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, just try archiving as many as you can, you can try -- Newcomb Feminist Film Series to screen Obvious Child (info) [tulanehullabaloo.com] -- and Right Guy Is Just One in a World of Choices (info) [nytimes.com] -- let me know once you've archived those 2. I want "Plot" changed to "Plot synopsis" as it's been recommended to me in the past at high stages of review like WP:GAN and WP:FAC before. I strongly but respectfully disagree mentioning a couple reviews in the lede is not overkill or biased, you already make the editorial decision what to say about them in main article body text, LOL. Keep me posted on above recommendations, below, and I'll revisit. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Recommendation: You can avoid bias by specifically mentioning those film critics who are already notable on their own merit, and use those to add to the lede. These appear to be: Peter Travers, A. O. Scott, Todd McCarthy, Dana Stevens, David Edelstein, and Mick LaSalle. Hope that's helpful ! :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I see very good FA model Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan uses just "Plot", so you can feel free to keep it that way. :) — Cirt (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@97198:Let me know, here, if you've got a status update on this one. If I see some significant positive progress being made with regards to recommendations, above, we can keep the review open a tad bit longer. If some of my own recommendations clash with very good FA model Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan — then no worries, I'll defer to that. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I've mentioned a few specific critics in the lead; let me know if you think that's sufficient. As I said above, I was unable to archive those links (see my previous reply for details on why). I think that's everything. 97198 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


### Passed as GA
Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and patience, Cirt. :) 97198 (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)