Contents

Talk:The Danish Poet

	The Danish Poet has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: Canadian / European / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Canadian animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the European animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance). Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Norway This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles Film: Canadian / Nordic This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the Nordic cinema task force.

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

Hi, I will be reviewing your article The Danish Poet for GA. Initially the article looks very good and seems to be well referenced. I will be adding comments as I go through it again. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wondering why, after reference #6, you have written "Event occurs at 1:27"?
  • This is standard for references to video (using {{cite video}}). The event that I am referencing happens at 1 minute 27 seconds into the video. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In this sentence, you should not switch to the first person until you are actually into the quote: Kove's first ideas for The Danish Poet began when she went through a period of self-assessment and wanted to write a story based on a person's origins—when you realize that your own existence is a "complex web of all kinds of stuff, like genetic make-up, upbringing, coincidences, choices you made along the way, missed opportunities, [and] lucky breaks".

In other words, it should be "she went through a period of self-assessment and wanted to write a story base on a person's origins-when that person realizes that his own existence is a "complex web etc." or some version of that.

• Yes... this was a bit tricky and I wasn't quite pleased with it. I've re-written the sentence; let me know what you think. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "She felt that it was natural to centre on a relationship between two people..." - What does "it" refer to?
  • Nothing really... "it" doesn't always have to refer to something, or it's some grammatical thing where "it" refers to an implied word that's not said... I'm not really sure (i.e. "it was raining", "it's normal to be afraid", etc.) At any rate I'll change it to read "it was a natural choice", as that sounds better. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• She "pitched her script" to what organization? Who financed and backed the film? How was it promoted?
  • I guess it's not clear here, but what happened is that she worked at the NFB as an assistant, and then pitched a script to the NFB while working there, which eventually led to her beginning a career as an animator/director. Then she wrote and produced this film. Does that make sense? (I've expanded this in the article, so take a look and tell me if it's clear). Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Red#Avoiding red links, you should remove the red links that will not soon have an article
  • Done. I left Norwegian Film Institute though, as I think it may be notable enough. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Should you not have a "Legacy" or "Impact" section describing the effect this production had on animated films after its release?
  • I don't know if it's been that influential... I certainly haven't found anything I could possibly reference. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you covered everything of importance that went into the animation. Is there more to be said than it is "traditional"; is there anything unique or individualistic about it?
  • In fact, it's not a really unique style (Kove says this herself in one of the interviews), so there's unfortunately not much to say. But I've tried to flesh it out a bit more. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good job!

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose): b(MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(references): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]