Talk:Dazed and Confused (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Lbal (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yoshiman6464 (talk . contribs) I will plan to review this article; section by section; citation by citation. I'll send you a review within a week. 20:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: any updates? This review appears to be abandoned. Skyshiftertalk 17:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter: There are. I’m going through the reception section. My apologies for the delay; I was busy with personal things. Expect a review by Wednesday. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Review

My apologies for the MASSIVE delay; I got busy with family and work in the past month. Anyways, I went through the article. It is VERY close to being a good article. However, there are some issues with the article that prevent this article from being good.

1. Well written?

a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

• Bibliography is needed for this article, especially with the book "Alright, Alright, Alright: The Oral History of Richard Linklater's Dazed and Confused". See the Back to the Future article for a good example of that.

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

• Parts of the article cites some unreliable sources, the two biggest ones are the Daily Beast article (per WP:DAILYBEAST; in which the article cites different sources.)
  • For example, for the casting of Renee Zellweger, it cites a list from Daily Beast - which itself cites a 2013 article from People Magazine
    • "Then: At just 23, the Texas native had a super-quick, uncredited cameo as "girl in blue pickup truck," seen funneling a beer through a bong at a nighttime party."
    • There is no mention of this line —> "She auditioned for the role of Darla, which eventually went to Parker Posey"
• Also, IMDB is not a reliable source - especially in the "Filming" section. Many of the filming locations cite IMDB, which is a site that anyone can edit. For example "Shooting began on July 13, 1992" cites IMDB; “Bedichek Middle School in Austin was used as the location for the film's fictional Robert E. Lee High School, while Everette L. Williams Elementary in nearby Georgetown stood in for Williams Middle School” - Cites IMDB. Try to use better sources if possible.
• Finally, for the Home Video section, the VHS release needs a better source than FamilyVideo.com. If you have access to Newspapers.org (via the Wikipedia Library), there are potential resources for that home video release.

d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3.Broad in its coverage:

a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic

• The article has sections that aren't detailed. The Casting and Post-Production sections are big examples. The casting needs some commentary for its casting, while the "Post-Production" section needs some extra details. The article posted on Cinephilia Beyond has Richard Linklater's commentary regarding the film's post-production.
• "There are no daily or weekly deadlines, but Sandra sets goals for us and we tend to get everything done"
• "When they cut the music budget just before production started, they all assured me the studio routinely puts up additional money for music in the post-production phase, especially if music is a major element of the movie. Absolutely, no one would argue that music isn’t perhaps, the major element of the movie."

b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Word count is summary is 690 words, which is perfect for Wikipedia's 400-700 word limit.

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

a.media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

• The only non-Free images are the film's poster.

b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• My only nitpick is that there are too many car images, and there could be another image in its reception section. But it's more minor than the rest.

Overall, you are close to having a good article. But this article needs more details. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464 Thank you! I will do my best to get the article improved! The review was very helpful. Lbal (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)