I am going to scribble down comments over time and then do a checklist review after going through the article. The checklist will compare the article to
WP:WIAGA. The comments may not strictly adhere to this guideline.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
As I look at the
WP:LEAD, it violates preferred formatting with more than four paragraphs. Please reorganize it into four paragraphs. If your article and lead are organized properly,
Ruhrfisch's rule of mentioning each section of the article in the LEAD would give a good overview of the article.
Typically, the first paragraph introduces all variants of the name. Thus, I think the book and the album should be mentioned in the first paragraph to help the reader looking for any variant (unless and until those items have their own articles at which point a hatnote would give immediate clarification).
It seems to me that there is an album (or two since the section is titled
An_Inconvenient_Truth#Score_and_soundtrack there may be one of both) that should either have its own article or be mentioned as an alternate use of the name for clarification. If it is significant enough to have its own top level section the reader should get some clarification on the use of the name, IMO.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Do you really think this movie is about "An Inconvenient Truth focuses on Al Gore and his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis." It is about the climate crisis, not Al Gore and his travels, if I recall correctly.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe while ostensibly the film is about global warming, the crux of the film is Gore's campaign to educate others on the issue with his slide show.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the takeaway for the reader from the NYT description "mainly consisting of a lecture about climate change given by Al Gore" and your "focuses on Al Gore and his travels" is totally different. I would look for a few more reliable sources and summarize their descriptions rather than write my own.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The lecture is mentioned in the next sentence though; I think a good part of the film is focused on him traveling to other places (i.e. "his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public...") and giving the slide show.--
The lorax (
talk)
20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The Synopsis is an issue for me. However in a prior review for
Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/GA1, I have been convinced to not be strict with film plots. I just don't buy a 2006 Best Documentary Feature winner not having plot reviews readily available in the press.
Each quote should have an inline citation. If it is verbatim from the movie the citation should say as much.
I get the feeling that you are summarizing the movie from your own perspective of a DVD rental. What we would prefer is a
WP:RS summary of the movie. Uncited plot summaries are acceptable according to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but I think this movie should have critical reviews that summarize the movie. From these you can expand to the level of detail you aspire to here. This was an Oscar winner so there have to be sources that can be helpful here. Some stuff is
here. Look around. If after checking you find nothing let me know, but I think leaving it uncited is not totally necessary.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe someone added that because it was included in the slide show as soon as filming commenced and was a new study at the time.--
The lorax (
talk)
20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you explain why this is a centerpoint and how it was presented in the film. Maybe add a phrase saying "A centerpoint of the film was a then-new slide exhibiting his exmamination..." if you have a
WP:RS saying it was new or other reason to make this claim. Also, it might help to say According to XXX, A centerpoint or describe it as a centerpoint because it was referenced several times later.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Chrisjwatts (
talk) The link to illustrator in the Slides section, shouldn't this link to Adobe illustrator and not just illustrator? —Preceding
undated comment added 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
"causing fossil fuel to last longer" is ambiguously worded. It could mean that a given use will extend longer, but what I think you mean is "causing the earth's finite supply of fossil fuel to last longer" or something like that in a phrase that should be set off by commas. Then the rest of the sentence needs some parallel structure, IMO. The parallel referrent of "thereby decrease emission of greenhouse gases in the short term but not long term" is ambiguous although maybe just putting "to" in front of it makes it clear that "the implementation of a carbon tax" is the referent (the noun that this dependent clause refers to).--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
06:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
That section was way overly technical and confusing, so I changed the description to: "pushed for the implementation of a carbon tax to encourage energy efficiency and diversify the choices of fuel better reflecting the true environmental costs of energy use."--
The lorax (
talk)
13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I mean that you should go through the article and eliminate redundant links. After mentioning this I should not open the article and see
Davis Guggenheim linked twice in the
WP:LEAD.
You seem to be mixing up the terms
film score and
soundtrack. Read these links. Link the terms in your article after you have rewritten it to be consistent with these links or fix the links if you feel they are wrong.
I just changed the subheadline to Music which corrects previous confusion over terms.
The section title is better, but now the text obfuscates the issue instead of clarifies it. I don't see soundtrack in the text, but you plop a track listing and a template in there without explaining it. You should probably leave the track listing for the soundtrack article. I don't understand how the Etheridge song is associated with the movie if it is not on the soundtrack. Is it on an album. I remain unsure if the soundtrack and the score are being confused. Please use the links for both terms in the text.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I just noted in the article that it is playing in the end credits. While the song wasn't on the official soundtrack ala My Heart Will Go On, it was available for iTunes digital download.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe this is a rare case where the general plot should be required to have reliable sources. This is a political film and as such there are opinions about what it actually says. This was a very prominent film in the media and expert explanations should abound. A few should be available.
The second paragraph of the Reception section could use full dates for each festival screening.
"leaving the United States the only industrialized nation in the world not to have signed the treaty." - is this true with Obama in office. This article needs to be updated for the new administration. I believe Obama and Gore see eye-to-eye on many environmental issues.Y
I couldn't find a source saying Obama saw the film and it influenced his policies, so I don't think we should say anything to that effect until some quote pops up where he's like "AIT made me go to Copenhagen" or something similar.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I still would like to see an express statement that the movie is not based on the book of the same name.
It remains unclear why a section is described as the centerpoint. No reliable source is noted for this claim and no explanation is given.
Gore says "the idea for a book on the climate crisis actually came first." in the introduction of the book version. But in the previous sentence, he says Laurie David was the influencing factor for the movie, not the book. I removed the "centerpoint" stuff.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I am going to scribble down comments over time and then do a checklist review after going through the article. The checklist will compare the article to
WP:WIAGA. The comments may not strictly adhere to this guideline.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
21:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)reply
As I look at the
WP:LEAD, it violates preferred formatting with more than four paragraphs. Please reorganize it into four paragraphs. If your article and lead are organized properly,
Ruhrfisch's rule of mentioning each section of the article in the LEAD would give a good overview of the article.
Typically, the first paragraph introduces all variants of the name. Thus, I think the book and the album should be mentioned in the first paragraph to help the reader looking for any variant (unless and until those items have their own articles at which point a hatnote would give immediate clarification).
It seems to me that there is an album (or two since the section is titled
An_Inconvenient_Truth#Score_and_soundtrack there may be one of both) that should either have its own article or be mentioned as an alternate use of the name for clarification. If it is significant enough to have its own top level section the reader should get some clarification on the use of the name, IMO.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Do you really think this movie is about "An Inconvenient Truth focuses on Al Gore and his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the climate crisis." It is about the climate crisis, not Al Gore and his travels, if I recall correctly.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe while ostensibly the film is about global warming, the crux of the film is Gore's campaign to educate others on the issue with his slide show.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the takeaway for the reader from the NYT description "mainly consisting of a lecture about climate change given by Al Gore" and your "focuses on Al Gore and his travels" is totally different. I would look for a few more reliable sources and summarize their descriptions rather than write my own.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The lecture is mentioned in the next sentence though; I think a good part of the film is focused on him traveling to other places (i.e. "his travels in support of his efforts to educate the public...") and giving the slide show.--
The lorax (
talk)
20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The Synopsis is an issue for me. However in a prior review for
Talk:Psycho (1960 film)/GA1, I have been convinced to not be strict with film plots. I just don't buy a 2006 Best Documentary Feature winner not having plot reviews readily available in the press.
Each quote should have an inline citation. If it is verbatim from the movie the citation should say as much.
I get the feeling that you are summarizing the movie from your own perspective of a DVD rental. What we would prefer is a
WP:RS summary of the movie. Uncited plot summaries are acceptable according to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, but I think this movie should have critical reviews that summarize the movie. From these you can expand to the level of detail you aspire to here. This was an Oscar winner so there have to be sources that can be helpful here. Some stuff is
here. Look around. If after checking you find nothing let me know, but I think leaving it uncited is not totally necessary.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe someone added that because it was included in the slide show as soon as filming commenced and was a new study at the time.--
The lorax (
talk)
20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Can you explain why this is a centerpoint and how it was presented in the film. Maybe add a phrase saying "A centerpoint of the film was a then-new slide exhibiting his exmamination..." if you have a
WP:RS saying it was new or other reason to make this claim. Also, it might help to say According to XXX, A centerpoint or describe it as a centerpoint because it was referenced several times later.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Chrisjwatts (
talk) The link to illustrator in the Slides section, shouldn't this link to Adobe illustrator and not just illustrator? —Preceding
undated comment added 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC).
"causing fossil fuel to last longer" is ambiguously worded. It could mean that a given use will extend longer, but what I think you mean is "causing the earth's finite supply of fossil fuel to last longer" or something like that in a phrase that should be set off by commas. Then the rest of the sentence needs some parallel structure, IMO. The parallel referrent of "thereby decrease emission of greenhouse gases in the short term but not long term" is ambiguous although maybe just putting "to" in front of it makes it clear that "the implementation of a carbon tax" is the referent (the noun that this dependent clause refers to).--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
06:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
That section was way overly technical and confusing, so I changed the description to: "pushed for the implementation of a carbon tax to encourage energy efficiency and diversify the choices of fuel better reflecting the true environmental costs of energy use."--
The lorax (
talk)
13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I mean that you should go through the article and eliminate redundant links. After mentioning this I should not open the article and see
Davis Guggenheim linked twice in the
WP:LEAD.
You seem to be mixing up the terms
film score and
soundtrack. Read these links. Link the terms in your article after you have rewritten it to be consistent with these links or fix the links if you feel they are wrong.
I just changed the subheadline to Music which corrects previous confusion over terms.
The section title is better, but now the text obfuscates the issue instead of clarifies it. I don't see soundtrack in the text, but you plop a track listing and a template in there without explaining it. You should probably leave the track listing for the soundtrack article. I don't understand how the Etheridge song is associated with the movie if it is not on the soundtrack. Is it on an album. I remain unsure if the soundtrack and the score are being confused. Please use the links for both terms in the text.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I just noted in the article that it is playing in the end credits. While the song wasn't on the official soundtrack ala My Heart Will Go On, it was available for iTunes digital download.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I believe this is a rare case where the general plot should be required to have reliable sources. This is a political film and as such there are opinions about what it actually says. This was a very prominent film in the media and expert explanations should abound. A few should be available.
The second paragraph of the Reception section could use full dates for each festival screening.
"leaving the United States the only industrialized nation in the world not to have signed the treaty." - is this true with Obama in office. This article needs to be updated for the new administration. I believe Obama and Gore see eye-to-eye on many environmental issues.Y
I couldn't find a source saying Obama saw the film and it influenced his policies, so I don't think we should say anything to that effect until some quote pops up where he's like "AIT made me go to Copenhagen" or something similar.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I still would like to see an express statement that the movie is not based on the book of the same name.
It remains unclear why a section is described as the centerpoint. No reliable source is noted for this claim and no explanation is given.
Gore says "the idea for a book on the climate crisis actually came first." in the introduction of the book version. But in the previous sentence, he says Laurie David was the influencing factor for the movie, not the book. I removed the "centerpoint" stuff.--
The lorax (
talk)
14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)reply