# Talk:Zero Patience

I'm very concerned/upset/nervous that there's no mention of Benjamin Plener in this article. He was instrumental to developing this plot, he acted in a MAJOR role, and he's an overall swell guy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.26.24 (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:

Infoboxes (both for film and soundtrack) should not contain any red links
The cast section needs to conform to WP:FILM's guidelines.
Ditto for the plot section. Read as a stand-alone section, it either doesn't make much sense, or doesn't go into enough detail, I can't tell which.
All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
The "Awards and nominations" section should be merged with the "Critical reception" section, as it is too short to stand alone (and per precedent. See Jurassic Park (film))
The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article. For example, if one started reading the article without reading the lead, they'd have no idea what the background behind the film was; Dugas' name is not mentioned once in the body of the article. Also, it should summarize every major point made in the article; as it stands, there is little, if anything, about plot or production in the lead.
Usually when a review encounters a small number of problems, it is placed on hold to allow for the changes to be made. In this case, however, I feel that this article diverges far enough from the recommended style of WP:FILM that it would require a substantial rewrite, then benefit from a review from fresh eyes, before it could be acceptable for Good Article status. For that reason, I am failing the article for now. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am mystified by your comments.

Infoboxes: can you point out to me where it says that infoboxes can't have redlinks?
Cast section: I read the linked section and have no clue what you think needs to happen to bring the section into compliance.
Plot section: What specifically is confusing to you about the plot section?
Short paragraphs: specifically what paragraphs are you referencing?
Awards: what guideline says they should not be a separate section?
Lead: your comments are just generally confusing.
Please provide specific guidance as to the issues with the article. Otto4711 (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


### Addendum per nominator request
Infoboxes: I'm not sure where exactly the policy is, it may just be common sense. A random sampling of FA film articles (Jaws, Jurassic Park, Batman, Blade Runner and Borat) all show this policy to be the case, however.
Cast: Look carefully again at the two examples that relate to your style. The first (Halloween) discusses the casting in the context of the production in prose form, not just a list of people in a paragraph as you have. The other (Witchfinder General) has Actor as Role: Brief one-two sentence explanation of character/casting/role. Clicking on either link will enable you to observe how this is performed in practice.
Plot: If I could tell you that, it wouldn't be confusing. Let me try, however. First of all, the recommended length is at least 400 words. While I'm not a stickler for exact numbers, this summary is less than half of that size, which should tell you that it's not detailed enough. Furthermore, it is not, as per WP:FILM's recommendations, self-contained. When I do movie reviews, I specifically read the plot section first to make sure that it makes sense as a stand alone section. Note that WP:FILM says that "plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section, and/or mentioned in a cast section, are repeated here." Reading just the plot, for example, I have no idea what "Patient Zero" is, which takes everything out of context and makes it confusing. Furthermore, while the entire section lacks detail I believe, it's most notable in the subplot section. How does this subplot unfold? Progress? Conclude? No information is provided whatsoever. The plot summary is not meant to be one that you'd find in a newspaper - it's meant to be complete; "spoilers" and all.
Short paragraphs: The ones that are one-two sentences long. Specifically, the second paragraph in the lead, the second paragraph of "Production," "Cast," the second paragraph of "Plot summary," "Awards and nominations"
Awards: You can have them in a separate section if you really want them like that, but they cannot be prose because of the one-two sentence paragraph rule. So I suppose you could expand it if you wanted to. But again, a quick survey of FA Film articles...
Lead: I can't really make that any clearer. WP:LEAD has two major points, both of which have been violated: 1) The lead must not contain information that is not present in the body of the article (Intro contains the only references to Dugas and the main body of the text overall would make little sense if one did not read the lead) and 2) The introduction must summarize all major points/headings that are included in the body of the article (Intro does not contain much, if anything, about plot or production)
OK, well first, this is not an attempt to promote the article to FA, so judging it against FA articles and FA standards isn't really reasonable. As for redlinks, the notion that the infobox can't contain redlinks makes no sense. Should the names of the producers, the composer and the lead actors be omitted because someone hasn't written articles about them yet? As for the plot, the last film article I got promoted was initially failed because the reviewer thought the plot summary was too long, so it's difficult to know what to adhere to when fails are promulgated in part on diametrically opposed criteria. Short paragraphs...can you link me to the style guideline that says that there can never be one- or two-sentence paragraphs? As for the rest, you're making things more clear and I can work on them. Otto4711 19:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Providing you with examples to FA Film articles is a courtesy to show you how the standards are applied to Wikipedia's articles. I'm not a big fan of lowering standards because it's "only GA." As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between GA and FA is that GA is "one person says that this is a good article." Naturally, for various reasons, this may lead to some not-good good articles. FA is "the consensus between many people is that this is an excellent article." Very rarely do I see the value in "letting it go" when deciding whether or not to promote an article for GA. As for the redlinks, aside from me subjectively believing that it uglifies the infobox, is that much of the information can be repeated within the body of the article and linked there. Furthermore, if you feel that they're truly notable enough to deserve their own article, then why not write a five-minute stub? Problem solved. For plot length, I suggest following the WP:FILM guidelines that I linked you to. Not much a reviewer can do if you can point to concrete guidelines for length. For the short paragraphs, I can't find the link because I don't think there is one. Specifically, in certain situations (say before a quote) it makes sense to have smaller paragraphs. In most cases, however, it makes the prose look very choppy, which in turns affects the flow of the article. This may be subjective, I've seen plenty of GAs that don't abide by this, but that doesn't make them any less choppy in my mind. Especially too, it's such an easy thing to fix. Cheers, CP 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I've decided to put its nomination on hold, based on the following suggestions:

The ordering of the sections isn't consistent with most film articles.  Here's the typical order: plot, cast, production, reception, everything else.
Re-ordered sections Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"pre-production and casting got underway", "an unfortunate encounter", and "He hits upon the idea" are worded unencyclopedically.
"Unfortunate encounter" is a quote from the narration. It is now in quotes. "Hits upon the idea" is now the (IMHO duller) "comes up with the idea." I see nothing unencyclopedic about "pre-production and casting got underway." Frankly I don't see anything unencyclopedic about any of these examples. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"got underway" is just poor english, in my opinion.  But that's fairly minor, I'll let that one go.Drewcifer (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"He hits upon the idea of featuring Patient Zero and AIDS." Having read the lead, this sentence makes sense, but since (per WP:Lead) the lead should summarize the article and not introduce new information, this sentence should make sense on its own.  Or in other words, who is Patient Zero?  How does it relate to AIDS? etc.
Re-worded. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"Accepting the popular belief that Zero introduced the virus to North America" is "Zero" somebody's name?  It is unclear here, especially in this first mention.
I think we have to have some level of trust that the reader is not going to read the first of these two sentences and then not read the second sentence. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Drewcifer (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"When Zero's doctor (Brenda Kamino), mother (Charlotte Boisjoli) and former airline colleague Mary (Dianne Heatherington)" are these the characters names or actors names?  Same with "The monkey (Marla Lukofsky)", "Miss HIV (Michael Callen)", and "George (Richardo Keens-Douglas)".
Names in parentheses are actor's names, which is standard in descriptions of films and in line with WP:FILM style guidelines. See for example Casablanca (film). Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It is confusing since both the characters and the actors are relatively unknown.  For example, is Brenda Kamino the name of the doctor or the actress?  If nothing else, it would be best to establish that names in parenthesis are actors names the very first time it's used, by saying something like "When Zero's doctor (player by Brenda Kamino)".  All the other names in parenthesis, therefore, could remain unchanged and make sense. Drewcifer (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The first "Character (Actor)" combo is "Sir Richard Francis Burton (John Robinson)" in the first sentence of the plot section. Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, great, could you put "played by" there then? Drewcifer (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"and former intime of Zero's." what is an "intime" and why is it italicized?
"Intime" is French and was italicized as a non-English word. Since it's confusing it's changed to the English "intimate." Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Better, but I've actually never heard the word intimate used as a noun.  Wouldn't lover or something like that be easier for most to understand.  Whatever you thinks is best.Drewcifer (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
They weren't lovers. They were fuck buddies or "friends with benefits." I have no problem with using either of those terms but they rather jar with the tone of the piece. Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I see the difference.  Is "intimate" a direct quote from the movie?  This isn't a big deal, it just seems like it might be confusing to other people, as it is to me. Drewcifer (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference between lovers and fuck buddies? "Lover" implies an emotional context that was not part of the relationship as expressed in the film. The film uses the phrase "fuck buddies" which, again, I have no problem with but which clashes with the tone of the rest of the article. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
ACT UP should only be wikilinked the first time its mentioned.
Fixed. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes should be wikilinked the first time it's mentioned.
Fixed Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any newspaper titles should be italicized.
Fixed Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"seem[ ] to deny some of the grim realities" what's up with those brackets?
The word from the original is "seems" so the brackets reflect that there is a missing letter. Since it's potentially confusing I've bracketed the word instead. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The queer theory perspective paragraph is great, but I'm not sure if it applies to the Critical reception section.  I'd recommend either making a subsection, or giving it it's own section. (preferably the former).
Now a subsection. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"John Greyson became interested in offering a counterpoint to the Patient Zero story as early as 1987, when the Patient Zero meme began entering the public consciousness following the publication of Randy Shilts's book And the Band Played On, describing the cluster study which led to the popular identification of flight attendant Gaëtan Dugas as the vector through which HIV was first brought to North America (although it should be noted that Shilts himself never claimed that Dugas was the first)." Big sentence, no?
Broke into three sentences. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"continue to develop the script" wrong tense.
Fixed. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The soundtrack section should have some sort of prose to introduce the topic.  Treat it like a mini-article within the larger article.
Added a bit; there just isn't a lot out there on the soundtrack. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what it needed. Drewcifer (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Citations 1, 11, and 12 are problematic.  Specifically, I would recommend making the book in general a general reference, and making the in-line citations refer back to that reference.  Check out an FA or GA for some examples (though obviously not all have such references).
The referencing follows the same formatting as other GA articles I've gotten promoted. I think it's OK. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Vincent van Gogh for an example of what I mean.  The main thing is that "Aaron 4" is confusing.  Aaron page 4?  chapter 4?  volume 4? and unlike citations 11 and 12, we don't know what page citation 1 comes from.
I've added "p." to each of the cites. The initial cite also comes from page 4, which was in the cite. The citation template doesn't insert the "p." automatically, which it probably ought to. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Any other External links you could add?  A few more good resources would be nice.
I don't know of any, having searched fairly exhausively for what's here already. One would hope that this is not a barrier to promotion. Otto4711 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Howabout {{rotten-tomatoes|id=zero_patience|title=Zero Patience}} for a start.  Anything else would be nice, but that should be enough.
Oh, OK, those kinds of links. I was thinking, like, I don't know what I was thinking. Added. Otto4711 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(Added after initial review) To someone relatively ignorant of the history of AIDS such as myself (and we should assume any reader of the article), this article seems somewhat out of context.  This is a film very much based on a particular viewpoint of history, so what exactly is that history?  Where does this film fit within that greater context?  What exactly is the point of view being expressed here?  To be more specific, things like the Patient Zero theroy, Gaëtan Dugas himself, etc aren't really discussed anywhere but the lead.  To help out ignorant people such as myself, I think a brief section explaining the context of the film would be very helpful.  I'm not suggesting goin into the entire history of aids here, but some real-world historical information would be nice.  The rest of the article seems to take knowledge of the historical events somewhat for granted. Drewcifer (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh my god. Seriously? After all this nickle-and-dime stuff that's been fixed, now you're going to raise some huge objection based on historical context? Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea pretty much.  I don't know if I'd really call it a huge objection, though.  I could see it easily done in 4 or 5 sentences, though I suppose that's up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I rhink the lead and the production section cover the historical context. Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I totally forgot about the stuff in the production section.  Consider this one taken care of. Drewcifer (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I'd say it's a pretty decent article, and although there's alot of bullet points above, most of them seem like fairly minor suggestions. So, I've put the article's nomination on hold to give everyone working on it some time to address/implement my suggestions. Holds last a maximum of 7 days, at which point the article will either be passed or failed. Feel free to drop me a line when/if you feel the article is ready for me to look at it again, and/or if you have any questions or comments. Good luck! Drewcifer (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Since putting the article on hold, it's been improved considerably, so I've passed it's GA nomination.  Good job!  The last few things that I would suggest, but not hold it against the article, is to clear up the actors names in parenthesis and possibly reword intimite.  Both minor things.  Great job, and keep up the good work! Drewcifer (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Zero Patience. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/19930913/3081.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Zero Patience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808110300/http://www.academy.ca/hist/history.cfm?categid=17&shownum=15&winonly=0&awards=1&rtype=5&curstep=4 to http://www.academy.ca/hist/history.cfm?categid=17&shownum=15&winonly=0&awards=1&rtype=5&curstep=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)