# Talk:Picnic on the Grass

This review is transcluded from Talk:Picnic on the Grass/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gatoclass (talk · contribs) 04:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
I'm probably not going to fail it for this, but there are far too many short sentences for my liking, particularly in the "Plot" section, but throughout the entire article. All the sentences also tend to be the same length, which I find irritating. It's a bit like reading an elementary "See Spot run" book. IMO you need to learn to vary the length of your sentences more, and also trust that the reader can absorb more than a couple of points at a time in a sentence. But that Plot section definitely needs a bit of work IMO.
Hmmm, I notice that the "Reception" section is much better written; I'm guessing you weren't terribly engaged with the subject matter when you were describing the film's production. Anyway, if the bit of copyediting I have done is acceptable to you Ffranc, I think this one is just about ready for promotion now. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
They have invited journalists to document the event - on reflection, I don't know what "event" this is referring to?
before his cousins capture him. Capture him? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Thank you for the copyediting, which looks very good to me. I merged a few sentences myself and added a citation where you had left a maintenance tag. I've also carified that the event = the picnic, and added "with force" after "capture him" - which perhaps wouldn't make complete sense in the real world, but it is what happens in the movie. Ffranc (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
No problem Ffranc. This probably isn't far from promotion now, I will just return tomorrow I think to take a fresh look at it and then hopefully we can wrap things up.
A couple more issues:
Accordng to Mérigeau, the film was a way for Renoir to confront the boy he once was with the troubling questions of the contemporary world. - this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also, it isn't clear to me how the sentence Another parallel is with Renoir's film Partie de campagne, filmed in 1936, and the similarities in its portrayal of eroticism relates to the section topic "youth".
Tried another formulation that hopefully is more clear. Here is what the source says, if that helps: "In it [=the movie] Renoir rediscovers the child, the adolescent, the boy in love that he once was and that he confronts with the questions that are troubling, or that soon will trouble, the modern world: ..."
I changed the section heading to "Youth and experience" and tried to tie it together a bit better.
These include the films of Jacques Tati, Mr. Freedom (1968) by William Klein and The Holes (1974) by Pierre Tchernia. "By" Klein and Tchernia? What does that mean?
Added "directed"
Renoir offered 50% of his earnings from La Grande Illusion (1937) as a reimbursement guarantee - to whom was the guarantee offered?
Clarified
the working method was however not used again. I presume this is meant to refer to the working method of Experiment? But on which film was it "not used again" - Picnic or the later Elusive Corporal?
Changed to "the multiple-camera technique was abandoned after Picnic on the Grass"
Looks good, thanks. Ffranc, what do you think of the changes I made to the lead, do they work? I'm not always the best judge of my own prose. Gatoclass (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks good to me. Ffranc (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The rehearsals then resumed, with markers chalked on the floor corresponding to the locations' topography. Does a floor have topography? This suggestion seems counterintuitive to say the least.
Changed to "filming locations' topography"
Actually, it was the word "floor" I was querying as floors are generally flat and have no topography and much of the film appears to have been filmed out-of-doors. I have therefore changed "floor" to "ground" - hopefully this is what the source intended.
No, the filming took place outdoors, but this is about the rehearsals, which took place indoors before filming began, thus the need to use chalk on the flat floor before moving on to the real location. I'll make it more clear that they still were indoors when the rehearsals resumed.
Furthermore, upsetting for the left, the reservations Étienne develops ... - what reservations? It's not clear what this is referring to.
That's not entirely clear in the movie either, and seems to have been even less clear to the critics. I've changed it to "the reservations Étienne appears to have developed toward the end of the film..."
Wait, I got mixed up between Étienne the character and Renoir the filmmaker - the sentence actually makes sense now that I realize it's referring to the character. But I don't think your edit has done any harm either.
I know I've said this before, but I'm sure we are just about there now. I will just take a hopefully final look at it tomorrow as I'm a bit tired right now, and we'll take it from there. Thank you for your patience in responding to my queries.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I dare say I could go over this again and find one or two other bits and pieces that might benefit from a tweak, but it's the law of diminishing returns and this is GAN not FAC and one has to stop somewhere. In any case, once we got over the short sentence issue, the article was already in pretty good shape.
Overall, you have had to deal with some complex ideas in putting this article together and you've presented them cogently and well. So while my experience with the process is admittedly limited, I would have thought that this article would make a pretty good FAC candidate if you want to give it a shot there. Anyhow, well done, and I hope I didn't test your patience too much over the last few days! Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for taking the time. Ffranc (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)