Talk:Itim

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.

---

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)

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))

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)

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.

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.

---

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

Nominator: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 23:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All grammars and spelling are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Better than the first review The lead translation, it should be {{Literal translation|black}}.  Done
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All references are okay.
	2b. 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).	All uses of sources are reliable. Although, the lead was have a citations that should not have a citations but some lead needs a citation so it will fine for this as consideration.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	looks fine and scope of the article was maintained the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All goods to me.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Meet the WP:NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	the poster are okay, using fair use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	same as 6a.
	7. Overall assessment.	Wait until Mushy Yank to address the recommendation. The article suitable for Good Article and can be now nominated on WP:DYK or in higher on WP:FA nomination. But I would suggest for a peer review before nominate on FA. If you are not statisfied, just do a reassessment on this. Royiswariii Talk! 08:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Hello, Royiswariii and thank you for reviewing this. -Mushy Yank. 13:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

May I ask? Why did you review the own GA? Talk:Itim/GA1? You know you aren't supposed review your own nomination? Royiswariii Talk! 16:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't review my own nomination. I reviewed Kting97's (see User talk:Kting97#Your GA nomination of Itim 2) who seems to have left Wikipedia. (Also see that discussion and my attempt here). Thanks again. -Mushy Yank. 16:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Royiswariii, I see you've given each criterion a pass with little to no comment. Could you explain in the Review Comment field what made each criterion a pass? Because I just skimmed through the article and found the Cast section and claim about the positive reception the movie allegedly earned to be uncited, contrary to MOS:FILMCAST and MOS:FILMCRITICS. Please note that content assessment such as a GA review requires giving an article an in-depth review and not merely a rubber-stamp approval (WP:GAN/I#R3); lest, you undermine the GA process and create a culture of complacency. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy!

I checked carefully the article and it's looks good to me, I'll add all my review comment, I didn't check for now because i'm too busy in my academics. Royiswariii Talk! 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy! Thank you for your note.

Unless I am mistaken, MOS:FILMCAST does not indicate cast sections should have cites; from my understanding, just like Plot section, they refer to the film content (credits), unless actors appear with a different name or are uncredited, per MOSCAST "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source."/"For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided". See Enola Holmes (film)#Cast (GA), for example. Now, you can add refs if you develop the character's description (See Citizen Kane (FA)) and I will add a reference if you think it's better. Most cast members happen to be cited in another section (Casting). Thanks again -Mushy Yank. 05:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Done

I have removed the short sentence about overall positive reception that was indeed meant to introduce the 2 following sentences and contrast it with poor commercial reception. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 06:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Done

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.

Thanks

Thank you!@Royiswariii:; I should insist that the article is mostly Kting97's work, and would also like to thank @Spodle and Paleface Jack: for their work.-Mushy Yank. 12:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mushy Yank: I do not believe I helped much, other than offer a few pointers. Appreciate that however. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1976 Philippine film Itim was described as "one of the most remarkable debuts in cinema history"?

• Source: MoMA

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dim Montero

Improved to Good Article status by Mushy Yank (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 80 past nominations.

NØ 12:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC).

• Article is of a substantial length and was made a GA on November 21. It was nominated in the proper time frame, and is within policy. No copyright violations detected. The hook length is fine, and the fact is interesting and verified to the cited source. The only issue is that we need to attribute the quote in the hook to the Museum of Modern Art. Once that is fixed I can approve the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Does it need to be attributed within the hook? That would adversely affect catchiness and does not seem to be a requirement looking at recent DYK hooks like this and this.--NØ 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've had several of my hook proposals held up in the past when I've done quotes; particularly when they make exceptional claims like the one in this hook. Personally I think attributing the quote to MOMA makes it more hooky not less. But that's just me.4meter4 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for that nomination, MaranoFan and thanks for notifying me and for your concern, 4meter4. Rather busy at the moment, sorry. How would you wish to have it phrased if it's attributed? "by XX" seems impossible, as the name of the person is not known only the insitution (by the MoMa does not sound right) ;"in a presentation for a screening at the MoMa"? Not too long?21:07, -Mushy Yank.3 December 2024 (UTC)

Alt1... that the 1976 Philippine film Itim was described as "one of the most remarkable debuts in cinema history" at a 2022 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art?

@Mushy Yank Here is my suggested alt. I'll have to get another reviewer to promote it since I wrote it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4 I don't think there was any exhibition stricto sensu, though; it was a retrospective (https://www.moma.org/calendar/film/5516). Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 22:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Need a hook review of Alt 1.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)