Talk:Itim

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

• Nominator: Kting97 contribs
• Reviewer: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs) 16:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   In the plot summary, not sure the use of espiritista twice is the best choice.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The Lead section does not mention the supernatural or spiritism. It should. It needs expansion to reflect the page. Other infos seem missing (context for the director). We probably understand it's an important film but the reader needs to know roughly why that is.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   Production: The source about not being able to cast big stars is an interview with DL. When the article says that hiring big stars was a "the convention at the time", 1) it should be said it is DL who said that 2) the word "convention" should be replaced by "practice" (and presented as a quote). Themes section: More importantly, the analysis of themes section may look as original synthesis. We cannot know for sure from the way it is written if the Sisos article (quoted 6 times in this section only) is dealing with this particular film (and not of a more general scope). It is certainly not far from accurate, but we need other sources plainly analysing this topic in this film. For example, this sentenceThis distinguishes the séance in Itim from scenes in similar films of the horror genre, as in Itim there is seriousness in the séances' religious legitimacy. does not seem to be a quotation from Sisos. And if it is, like the paragraph coming just after, it is not convincing in the way it uses the source or articulates article phrasing and source quoted.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The Production section looks promising and even good. However the Themes and allusions one (see below) is a bit frustrating because of its limited scope (and the Heading title should, in my view not stay). Release and Reception sections have been tagged as needing expansion in April '23 and not clearly improved since then. I concur the Reception section might need more expansion if possible.

(Later note about my own assessment: I made a mistake asserting the sections had not been improved since they had been tagged; they had been improved, but the tag had been left....I apologise.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]

1. b. (focused):

   See below.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The emphasis on the topic of catholicism is certainly fair but the fact that no other themes are mentioned in that section makes it look like a bias.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Only one photograph (not counting the theatrical poster, of course). Probably needs more or one will ask: Why her?

5. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   The page is interesting, well written, shows attention to crucial points and certainly has some excellent parts. But the fact that the article was not reviewed for B class (it's still a C class article, technically) did not help I think. I think it lacks overall content in various sections, in particular in those that were tagged a couple of weeks ago around the nomination. This nomination was in my view too early. The page shows nice, promising work but definitely not up to meet GA standards. I wanted to take more time and say Wait but, on second thoughts, too much work is needed and an altogether new review is probably better. I suggest to pass through the process of an assessment for B, first, if possible.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)