Talk:Jojo Rabbit/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 02:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Jojo Rabbit - that was a pretty interesting watch, if I do say so myself! Anyway, I plan to complete the review of this article over the forthcoming week. So far, this article looks pretty splendid and rather informative - definitely learned a lot of things that I didn't know about beforehand! MSG17 (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSG17, thanks for picking up the nomination! Gerald WL 09:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Considering that lead citations are generally discouraged, could we remove the two currently there? I think the lead is adequately supported, although I might revist that later.
Some Dude From North Carolina added it due to synthesis concerns. I made the statement more generic so that citations are not needed. Gerald WL 09:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could each of the citations to the production notes have the page(s) indicated?
Is it needed though? I think readers who want to go to a specific page can just Crtl+F for the keyword ("candles, Guernica", etc). Gerald WL 09:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAGENUM, When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. MSG17 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MSG17, I'm right now slowly going into this. Gerald WL 14:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aaand it's Done. Gerald WL 15:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and MOS

Is a separate "Legacy" section needed to document the use of the film in one curriculum? Usually that's reserved for major impacts on film-making, the careers of those involved, or society as a whole. It seems to be that it would be better to merge this with "Historical accuracy", especially as the same department is in both.

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... what is a "silly seizure"? Sounds like an in-universe description rather than a more objective one.

Basically after Jojo denounces Adolf, he had a seizure, but the way he had it is very silly. You can find the scene in YouTube by searching Jojo Rabbit Deleted Scene. I can remove it if you find it in-uni, tho. Gerald WL 08:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting "silly seizure" in quotes would be the perfect compromise. MSG17 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and plagarism

So far, it looks like there isn't any copyvio, with Earwig mostly displaying false positives based on quotations or cast lists. Every point is backed up by a source, and most of the sourcing looks reliable... but I already see some major issues in the "Themes and analysis" section. (BTW, if access to sources is an issue, I can help there. Looks like there is a lot of academic research on the movie that can be used.)

MSG17, I'm well aware of the themes and analysis section problems. Funnily enough, when I was researching for this section the Google Scholar wasn't too diverse; this for example is new to my sight. I'll right ahead look to this here. Gerald WL 15:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've made the section cleaner. Not perfect and complete, but should be better. I'll further improve it tomorrow. Gerald WL 17:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: I've incorporated several sources and it now looks lengthy. There's some other good sources, but they're either foreign-language that I can't auto-translate, or one that I couldn't any get any point from. I've removed the Harvard references, but still believe that GradeSaver is a fine source, seeing this, and I find the discussion to still be tolerable of it. Gerald WL 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you! Personally, I think that Jojo's young age may be an interesting topic to look at, as various sources have commented on how the film portrays him and his friends and analyzed how children can be radicalized and learn as well as unlearn hate. If you don't think that's necessary, though, it's fine and I won't hold anything against you for it. MSG17 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSG17, I think the section looks fine now for GA. I'd take note of that though—probably a vital expansion for future FAC! Gerald WL 08:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GradeSaver is introduced as Harvard University's GradeSaver, but in fact it's explicitly disclaimed that it is "not affiliated with Harvard College". Although study guides are considered somewhat reliable for "superficial analysis" according to WP:RSP, a past discussion on its reliability does not show promising results, and there should be more reliable sources that analyzed the film.
Most of the section is cited to one thesis, and the conclusions in that thesis are presented authoritatively in wikivoice, which I think is somewhat misleading. On a more minor point, the poor proofreading doesn't inspire confidence. Once again, looking for more sources would be good.
Medium is equivalent to a blog host, so unless Academia Feminista is notable in its own right, it shouldn't be used. MSG17 (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MSG17, I've put an invisible comment beside it: the article is written by a person who has writing history in RS-es like The Guardian; her analysis style is also I believe very scholarly. Gerald WL 07:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: here are some links as to Nicole Froio: The Guardian, Uni of York, and Harper's Bazaar. Gerald WL 16:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think that resolved the sourcing issues, then. Passed on that front. MSG17 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broadness and focus

The article focuses on the right points, but it seems to be too detailed in some parts.

The "Cinematography and visual effects" section name-drops a lot of brand names and lines. The camera sections does explain what types of cameras were used and why at least, but the lighting section is just an infodump of model names that would only appeal to a small group of people and even make the article confusing for typical readers.
I've tidied the lighting section to make it more understandable. Gerald WL 11:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, there is some unneeded detail in the "Marketing and release" section. What airlines had it on their IFE systems is really too much, and I don't think we need details on what subtitles two of the home releases had. The bonus features are a bit borderline, but I think they'll be fine. There's also a lot of film festivals - it would be better to just mention Toronto first and then say it was shown at numerous film festivals before its theatrical release, maybe mentioning the most important ones if you think they are necessary.
Removed the IFE bit, and trimmed the festivals bit. I don't think the home media section is problematic though-- subtitles are an alright detail and quantitatively the section doesn't give more weight to the home media (as it should), so I don't see anything wrong. Gerald WL 11:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're only providing them for two releases. It's a rather minor detail in the grand scheme of things - should we list all the subtitles and audio tracks on all releases as well? Unless if a particular dub/sub or the amount of dubs/subs gets coverage for (a) specific reason(s) or the exclusion of a certain language is particularly criticized, it's not notable to say that it got translated because at that point you're going from encyclopedic coverage to something more like a catalog or iMDB. Let's look at the article for Parasite, for example. There is coverage of the English subtitles because of certain translation and localization choices. Even though the film was released with a Hindi dub in India, and that fact was covered in Indian media, there weren't any questions, criticism, debate etc. over the translation that was notable in that case. Sorry for the long message, but I hope the clearly explains things. MSG17 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and stability

Don't see any day-to-day changes, so passed on the stability front. Will get to neutrality later. (Edit: Don't see any issues with neutrality as well.)

Media

All the media used is either free or fair use, with the proper licenses. Although there is a lot of fair use media, it is accompanied with relevant commentary that justifies its inclusion. Passed.

Final notes

This is probably the longest article I've ever reviewed. Nevertheless, I tried my best to fully scrutinize the article and make sure it passes the needed criteria. I also had some personal issues that led me to question whether I would have to extend the review period or take a break. I am glad to see how well you took action on and discussed my points. With this, I am happy to say that the article has passed and is ready to be promoted to GA.MSG17 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MSG17, thanks for pursuing this review despite the article's length! It's one of my fav modern movies, and I'm very glad to see it getting a GA icon. Perhaps I could notify you back if I bring this to FAC. In the meantime, consider reviewing a PR I opened for Living in the Age of Airplanes. It's medium-long but way shorter than Jojo. Just notifying in case you're intereste. Gerald WL 12:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.