Talk:Chronicle of a Disappearance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeChronicle of a Disappearance was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
November 7, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Past GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chronicle of a Disappearance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It sounds like an extremely interesting film. I will list my comments below.—Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC) GA review (see here for criteria)[reply]

  • It is reasonably well written.
  • a (prose): In general, this article is well written. A few glitches: see below.
"He has just been through a twelve-year exile in New York City and returns in a now more unfamiliar territory." - do you mean "returns to a now unfamiliar territory" or something similar?
  • b (MoS): Conforms to relevant MoS
  • a (references):
The statement "Notably, it was the first Palestinian movie to receive national release in the United States" does not seem to be supported by the source.
  • b (citations to reliable sources):
  • Many of your sources as excellent, and some could be used more than you do. Some are not reliable:
This is not a reliable source http://www.answers.com/topic/chronicle-of-a-disappearance and even includes this Wikipedia article in it.
Also, imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115895/awards can only be used cautiously
There appear to be several sources on line that you have not used, for example:
  • "Chronicle of a Disappearance Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes". www.rottentomatoes.com. Retrieved 2009-07-04. is considered reliable for movies
  • Adams, Sam. "Chronicle of a Disappearance". www.citypaper.net. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  • Rock, Lindsey. "Offscreen.com :: Chronicle of a Disappearance: The Scared and The Mundane - Volume 11, Issue 5". www.offscreen.com. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  • Brennan, Sandra. "Chronicle of a Disappearance > Overview - AllMovie". www.allmovie.com. Retrieved 2009-07-04.
  • c (OR): No OR
  • It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):
The article never says what the Palestinian experience is. For example, one of your sources says, "What he creates is a Palestinian's sense of marginalization as well as pride in a series of vignettes, some dryly amusing, others expressing powerful emotions." There needs to be a summary statement like this for the theme. Also, there needs to be some description of what the historical situation is so that that theme of the movie is put into a context for the general reader.
b (focused):
  • Fair representation without bias: Neutral
  • It is stable.
  • No edit wars etc.: Stable
  • It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  • Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Fail
  • In general, this is a well written article on an interesting topic. It just needs some tweaks as outlined above to pass as a good article. I will put the article on hold for seven days to give you time to fix. Feel free to make comments or ask questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Hi Mattisse! To respond to one of the points you brought up above about answers.com, obviously it's not a reliable source, but would Amazon.com be? Answers.com has just used Amazon's take on the Chronicle of a Disappearance. Here's the link [1] The information in question is provided in the Review section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is used to establish publisher, or some other verifiable information, it would be ok. But not for opinions, evaluations, reviews etc. There are several links that provide reliable information to enlarge on what is already in the article. Plus at least one of the articles used has four pages of info. I think there is plenty already available to clarify the article. It is an extremely interesting film. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifcation. I'm going to wait for the nominator of this article to address the points you brought up since I have no familiarity with this film. I noticed he/she has been inactive for over a week now and if he/she doesn't respond within two days, I'll try to take care of these issues myself. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Article is failed as the nominator has not responded and has not been on wiki since the nomination. No one else is able to address the issues.

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chronicle of a Disappearance/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas

  • Well-written:
  • the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
  • There should be a space in the sentence "The Austin Chronicleand" section.
  • it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • The original-language film title of the film should be included.
  • Refer to the film as a "film" in the article, not as a movie.
  • The titles of awards should not be written in quotations.
  • The plot and production section should be separated. I think an expansion on the production section would be good.
  • If it is one of the first Palestinian films to be released in the US, some more information of it's release date would be good. That would need to be cited in the infobox.
  • Per WP:OVERLINK, the director's name is linked far too much over and over. Especially in the infobox. Try linking him only once per section.
  • When citing the sources for these articles, be sure to credit the authors last name, and then their first. Examine template:cite web for examples.
  • Per Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead could be expanded to explain more of the information contained within the article.
  • The imdb link to the director does not seem to be working properly.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

  • (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
  • it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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;
  • WP:Film does not consider IMDb as legitimate source as the information provided to the site is entered in by users rather then film experts, scholars or critics. Try to find other sources for those articles.
  • You might want to have that link that cites Allmovie actually going to the allmovie site, instead of the Answers.com back-up, which also mirrors the wikipedia article.
  • it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
  • There could be more information on the film's production. Outside the cast being family members and it being the director's first film, there is not much else here noted.
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

  • images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
  • It would be good to add the ALT tag for the image. Please see the update Template:Infobox_film for examples.
  • images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This article needs a lot of work done it as is not quite ready for GA yet. I'll give it a week to see how it comes along. Good luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all of the issues are now resolved. The only exception is the reference to All Movie Guide. It is not possible to cite the material to their website, as they have removed the material that once was there. It appears that the only possible option is to cite them through Answers.com The Squicks (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! I'm still a bit iffy on if this should be accepted as a Good Article however. My only issue is the length. I know this is a film with out much print information about it out there, but I'm not sure if it's considered long enough for a GA status. I'll give it another look over and If I'm still not sure I'll ask for a second opinion at WP:Good. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have no problem whatsoever with bringing in a second opinion, but I trust your best judgment on this- regardless- given your prominent experience. The Squicks (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


2nd opinion[edit]

I'm requesting a second opinion on this article. My main concerns is that I haven't seen the film, and I am not sure if the plot can be explained in a more concises or specific way. The production section seems to be half a small bio on the director and some of it seems trivial information that is discussed in the infobox (such as the languages). I know this is an esoteric film with not much information about it available, so I'm not sure if it should be passed on this ground yet. It's come a long way however from it's begining! Great work so far Squicks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section looks great; I see nothing wrong there. The Production section seems to read more like a commentary on the film's conception rather than production. Is there any information available on things like filming, acting, costumes, editing, etc?--Edge3 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit more information might be nice, but- as is- the article seems to me to clearly be a GA at this stage. I don't see anything that could be seen as a problem. The Squicks (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cast section would be nice to expand this article a bit more as there isn't much on the production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information on when it was released in theaters and home video would be good as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrze above that at least some mentions of release and home video are necessary, even if whole sections aren't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator has left, I'm not going to pass the article. It still needs a cast section and I still think the production could be expanded upon. I'll see if I can do anywork to this article. I hope The Squicks comes back as this article is very close to being GA. So close! Come back Squicks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chronicle of a Disappearance. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronicle_of_a_Disappearance&oldid=1223809566"