Talk:Goodbye to Language

Peer Review

Goodbye to Language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into it and 1) I'd like to see it get promoted, but more importantly 2) its a difficult film and I was hoping to get feedback on how much sense it makes as an article. If at all possible, I'd love to hear reviews of the Synopsis section from someone who has seen the film and another from someone who has not.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Tezero

• The sentences in Synopsis are quite short and choppy; I'd recommend melding some together with conjunctions and gerunds to make it flow better.
• Who's Davidson?
• "Roxy the dog" - optional if you feel it's unclear, but you may want to remove "the dog" since you've already specified
• "Roxy, a stray dog, happens upon them and they adopt him" - Roxy is adopted by both couples?
• You're right; Synopsis is confusing; it took me a couple reads to really grasp what was going on. I would suggest reorganizing some of the information in the first paragraph to make it clearer that it's essentially the same story told twice, interspersed, but with different couples. Perhaps something like this would do the trick:

Goodbye to Language tells two similar versions of a romance narrative in an interspersed format; these two stories are named "1 Nature" and "2 Metaphor", and they respectively focus on the couples Gedeon and Josette, and Marcus and Ivitch. In each story, ...

THEN, after a brief summary of the general narrative, start explaining what happens in each one individually. Actually, this is an unorthodox idea, but you might want to use two columns and tell the story separately in each one. Tezero (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I can work on most of these later this week, and you're right it wasn't made completely clear that the story was repeating itself. One problem: although I remember Roxy being adopted by both couples, many of the articles I cited have commented that it is unclear if the second couple adopts Roxy. But that doesn't seem very appropriate to explain in the Synopsis section. So I just wrote it as it currently is.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I worked on this and think its better. So much of the story (Davidson is a professor, the man once stabbed the woman) is implied and not bluntly stated, so it is a difficult section to write. What about the rest of the article?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Yeah, it's an improvement. A general theme I'm noticing is that the article seems unusually detailed - do we really need five paragraphs on the works referenced in this film? I'd think one or two would suffice. Same with Themes - I can't imagine that much has really been written about this film to justify a section rivaling/exceeding what the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Kerouac, Charlotte Bronte, Luo Guanzhong, and the Beatles would get. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I could trim it some more, but I'm not sure about your rational for doing so. The film has several themes and including them is comprehensive. The references are a major part of it so I think that a casual reader would find it very useful to be able to explore all of them. The point of these references is not the fact that there are many references in the film, the point is the meaning behind them and their individual content. Each reference has a purpose and is a character in the film. Anything else? Clarity, grammar?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article also received a review when it was successfully nominated as a DYK, so I'm fine to close this request now unless someone else has something to suggest.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this next. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Review

Infobox

• Good Infobox

Infobox is well presented and laid out.

Lead Paragraph

• Well Written
  

The lead is well written.

• Could be shortened
  

It is quite long and could be shortened a bit.

• No references
  

This section dose not contain 1 reference in the whole lead.

Synopsis

• Quote Box
  

Try to keep the standard colour for the quote box and have it horizontal so it merges in with the text where appropriate.

• Lack of References
  

There is not many references in the majority of this section. There are no references towards the plot, but the parts that are referenced are well referenced

• Too Trivia
  

The part references to other works are is too trivial. That whole paragraph should not be included as it is not encyclopedic enough. See WP:IINFO.

Cast

• Incomplete
  

The last four names do not include character they portray.

• No Reference
  

This section does not contain any cast sources.

Production

• Fairly well written
  

It is mostly fairly well written this section. Still some improvements could be made, grammar wise.

• Well referenced
  

This section is an improvement on the others. The references are good and feature when necessary.

• Quote Box
  

As previously mentioned in the review please try and keep the quote box its standard colour. Please have it in horizontal view.

Reception

• Well Referenced
  

Well written and referenced.

• List
  

No need to list all the other critics in Top film lists and awards. That part removing the trivia, could merge into the preceding part.

Themes and Interpretations

• Good Section
  

This part is well referenced and written very well. Same comment I have about the quote box but well done on the writing of this very detailed section.

Overall Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A.Yes the majority of the article is well written. A few minor grammar mistakes I picked up along the way, but excusable.

   B. No, There are quite a few parts that are trivial information. Please do not include trivial information please read WP:IINFO. The opening paragraph needs some references for verification. It seems quite self research.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. First half of the article (Infobox, lead paragraph, synopsis [the majority of it] and cast) contain very little to no reference.

   B. The references that are there are fully cited to reliable sources.

   C. Contains a lot of original research towards the start of the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic

   B. No a lot of trivial parts included.

4. Is it neutral?

   Neutral, article is not biased

5. Is it stable?

   Yes, there are not many significant recent changes

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged

   B. Images are relevant to the topic

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This one was tough to judge, especially me seeing how good the end of the article was. Please fix the issues I addressed for the start. By making more references and losing the coloured quote box. Make sure you do not have any self research in the article or trivia parts. If these parts are fixed the article will have a better chance of getting a good article. Unfortunately this time I can not mark this as a good article with so much self research but I strongly appreciate the dedication that was put into the second half of the article, Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on now. Firstly, can it be put on hold pending improvements please? Secondly, some of your comments are inaccurate. There do nbot need to be references in the lead or syopsis. I don't think the cast needs it either but I'll have to check that one. There is absolutely no original research. May I plerase either have a second opinion or more time? As far as trivial content, can you be more specific?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)