Talk:Ram Loevy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: harej 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):

b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): There are many paragraphs that are unreferenced. Make sure that each paragraph can be attributed to a reliable source.

b (citations to reliable sources): The sources used are reliable

c (OR): As far as I know, there is no original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Very comprehensive.

b (focused): Plenty of detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: No edit wars.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes

b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Yes
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Please address the situation with citations in the paragraph.

harej 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case I missed something, I am tagging this as "2nd opinion". harej 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

harej is correct to identify the referencing as a major issue. This article is sparsely referenced and needs a lot of work in this area. There are whole paras that are unreferenced. I do not agree with harej about the reliability of the sourcing in some cases. Examples:

note 5 - it is based on a CV in the editors possession. We know nothing of this document nor its status. It is not a reliable source. Remember "verifiability, not truth", is the test.
notes 15 and 17, likewise.
ditto note 43

Some of it reads as original research, but that may be corrected through the identification of sources for the material. An example: "By 1972, Loevy was ready to use drama to raise many of the issues that concerned him. His first attempts at drama were very literary, though they were hardly as iconoclastic as his later works. Nonetheless, they set a new tone for Israeli television drama, showing that it was not afraid to tackle major issues facing the society." What is the published reliable source for these views?
I think the article will take considerable revision to meet the GA criteria. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to address several of the comments and concerns here. I am appreciative of the concern that editors have concerning the factual accuracy of BLPs (not least because I was the person who first suggested tagging them), which is why I took abundant measures to avoid any controversial claims. Because of my background in Israeli film (despite a hiatus, I have worked in the field for years) I was fortunate in that I was able to piece together an enormous collection of information, some of it rare, and to use that to create this article. For example, press clippings and reviews play an important part of the sourcing. Altogether, there are 47 footnotes, with some sources being used multiple times, for a total 57 references. However, I took this one step further by contacting Loevy and asking him to confirm the information. He was very appreciative of this.

Take, for example, footnote 15, which you raised. The story of the writing of Bread appears in two newspaper articles (in Hebrew)--one says that they rewrote it multiple times, and another one says that they rewrote it "hundreds of times" (the comment appeared in a magazine interview in La'Isha). I did not believe this--hundreds is a minimum of 200, and over two years that would mean a new draft every 3.5 days. I asked him about this in an email, and he informed me that it was an exaggeration by the journalist, and that there were actually 16 drafts. I could go with the published information, which is factually inaccurate, or I could take his word on it. I choose the latter. Just because something is published doesn't mean it's correct, and I believe in accuracy. Furthermore, this is not a contentious fact. Saying one hundred would, however, be contentious, even though it is sourced. (In any event, this led to a longer conversation for my own edification about how the film evolved. It was in that conversation that I received the information that the role of the main character had shifted, the source of footnote 17.)

There are also several sources that I chose not to use. Two examples are:

IMDb: There are mistakes in the IMDb, but these are currently being corrected. I know because I posted them. In other words, quoting from there would be the equivalent of quoting myself, which I find questionable at best. One thing that can be found there, however, is a more complete resume than the one I cited from TAU. There are problems with that too, not least because of the spellings (Nabucco, not Nabuko). More importantly however, as I explained in a note, as a director, he focused on the production years, not the screening years, so in some instances, it is off by a year. An example of conflicting dates is the date for Bread, which is given as 1986 in the resume and 1987 in the filmography (1986 is correct). These are examples of things I attempted to verify with Loevy and cross reference with other sources (eg. reviews dating from 1986).
Nisssim Calderon: One of the greatest challenges in writing this article is that there is no official bio for Loevy except for his citation for the Israel Prize in 1993. This is being corrected, however, in an as yet released book by Israeli literary critic Nissim Calderon (you can find out about him here (Ohio State site in Hebrew) and here. Unfortunately, the book is only now being written, and while I was able to obtain a copy of the relevant chapter, it is only a first draft and will likely be revised. It also focuses only on his documentary films. I was given this document under the explicit conditions that I would not quote from it, and use it only to gain a deeper understanding of his work and its place. I have faithfully kept my part of the deal...

Only somewhat. In footnote 14 he explains the sources of his bio of Loevy, saying "I am basing this on a detailed account of his life as it appears in the submission forms for the 1993 Israel Prize." I've echoed this in footnote 5, having based the first three sections of the article on that same source. I could have chosen to add an Ibid. after every fact, giving the same source, but thought it would be neater to give a single source for that section. Similarly, I could have used the resume at the IMDb or TAU sites for each film, but that too would have been repetitious.

Other information appears in the relevant articles to which I linked. For example, the fact that the novella Khirbet Khiz'eh is part of the school curriculum appears in S. Yizhar article (footnote 2) and is not important to this article per se. Similarly, it seemed useless to footnote all of the background material in "Life after Lehem" (London Agreement and the rise of the Panthers) since all of that appears in the relevant articles. All of this can be added if you feel it is necessary, but my gut reaction is that it is a distraction.

There is one more important source--information for The Film that Wasn't. All of that is based on Loevy's talk exactly one year ago at Tel Aviv U. Here I did something a little crazy. I asked Loevy for permission to translate his talk and release it under a free license. He agreed, and my translation now appears in Wikisource. I could go the Ibid. Ibid. route there too, but this seemed much neater.

Finally, the new film. Here too, I can cite IMDb, but I wrote the bio there, so it is simply quoting myself. For reasons of full disclosure, the reasons I have the script in my possession is because I translated it into English for the production team. (In fact, it was the script that inspired me to write this article). To date, only about a dozen people have seen the script, and we are all bound by an implicit NDA. Also, the script could well change significantly, just as Bread did. The fact that it is about Jaffa is a given, considering the title. The only original information there (a spoiler, if you will) is that it covers two periods, 1947 and now--I am not at liberty to disclose more, nor is anyone else who knows about it.

I realize that this is a long response, but I do look forward to hearing your thoughts. I am rather proud of the article, not least because of a telephone call I received a few hours ago from Ram Loevy. He read the article and though he suggested a few minor tweaks (Kadya Moldovsky, not Katya, for instance), he told me it is the most thorough account of his life to date, and that his daughters learned things about him from it. While I will do what I can to get this into GA and even Featured status, I believe that his praise is the true measure of the article's success. Danny (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, you've done some great research obviously, and you know a lot about the subject - it just doesn't belong on wikipedia. Material on WP needs to be based on reliable sources - unfortunately, those don't include conversations with the article's subject or your own knowledge of the sector. It also must not be original research, which is much of what you have done here. The standard is "verifiability, not truth". If a published reliable source says something, you shouldn't over-ride that with a piece of unverifiable information, no matter how 'correct' it seems to you. At most, use your inside knowledge to omit a published fact you doubt, but that's it. Also, some sources are not considered reliable - IMDb in general, for exactly the kind of reason you identify - it hosts user-generated content like WP does, so one can end up quoting oneself. My advice is to take this material, improve it, and get it published in a reputable industry magazine that will check facts / use peer review / similar. Then all editors can use that work to improve this article. You say "Similarly, it seemed useless to footnote all of the background material in "Life after Lehem" (London Agreement and the rise of the Panthers) since all of that appears in the relevant articles." I'm not sure if I've understood your concern here. If something is covered by reliable sources, they should be footnoted. At a minimum, the relevant source(s) should be noted at the end of each para. No matter what. You can use numbered footnotes (as already done at note 37). Don't use "ibid". I think you have misunderstood the constraints of writing for an encyclopedia in terms of original research and verifiability. I understand some of the frustrations - i too work on biographies of living people, and i have had them / their agents / etc tell me things that differ from what i have located in the published sources. But unless they point me to a reliable source, my hands are tied. Hence my encouragement to you to try and publish your research on Loevy in a reliable source. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hamiltonstone's opinion, good research, not a Wikipedia friendly type of research. Best of luck, Sadads (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Review

I think that this has been hanging fire for too long. The initial reviewer appears to have lost interest, although I have placed a message on their page, the nominator has made no edits on the article since February 18. I have left a note for the nominator and will conclude this review within the next 24 hours. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

General comments

As noted above large parts of the artcile are uncited. I have placed {{cn}} tags on the most obvious cases.
There are a number of passages where commentry on Loevy is made but not attributed to a source. If there is no source then this will have to be removed. Mostly tagged with {{Who?}}
There are a number of statements using weasel words, again tagged.
Some of the grammar is poor, I shall highlight points below.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Poorly written in parts, e.g.

His first attempts at drama were very literary, though they were hardly as iconoclastic as his later works. Apart from the fact that this appears to be unattributed commentary, the two clauses are unrelated. First clause about literary merit, second about iconoclasty. These are not connected in the sentence.

By this time, however, a new, rightwing government headed by Menachem Begin was voted into power in 1977, while the film was still under production. Cleareer would be to say "a new, rightwing government headed by Menachem Begin was voted into power in 1977, while the film was still in production." In production is the more standard usage than under.

Following the uproar surrounding Hirbet Hiza'a, ... In the previous section it is called Khirbet Khize . Consistency!

The conflux of symbolism underlying this performance was not lost on anyone: Sounds impressive but is meaningless.

The director decides to make the film anyways, but his girlfriend, the set designer is soon murdered, initiating a chain of murders at the station. Anways? but his girlfriend, the set designer is soon murdered, needs an additional comma: but his girlfriend, the set designer, is soon murdered,

Two factors adding to the complexity of the story is the fact that the murdered woman is also the ex-wife of the director's close friend, the station's senior programming manager, and the Agnon story that he is filming is also a story about a love triangle. Two factors ... is? Both of these sentences are overly complex. Consider re-writing in plain English.

Overall the writing is not good. Too many flowerly adjectives. Short plain English sentences should be used. Every word should count. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, althiough aimed at feautured article candidtaes is a good guide. This 1948 essay by George Orwell is also a very useful guide.

The lead does not fully summarise the article. Please read WP:LEAD.

Section headings such as the film that wasn't and the films that were represent a point of view.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
ref #2 needs to be cited properly.

ref #5, a CV is not a reliable source.

references to newspapers and journals should be cited in the standard formats, see WP:CITATION#How to present citations and WP:Citation templates, consistency is needed. Most of the information about the Hirbet Hiza'aa incident is described by Anita Shapira in Alpayim, a leading Israeli literary journal, vol. 21, 2000. is not appropriate for example.

ref #9, needs attributiona nd publiser details, I suspect it is not a reliable sources, please show why it is.

ref #12 needs proper attribution

ref #13 needs attribution

ref #14 [1] is a dead link.

ref #16 is definitely not RS

ref #17 just present author, magazine, publishers, publication date.

ref #18 is definitely not RS

ref #19, is this a book? give sufficient details that it can be identified.

ref #20, as above

ref #21, needs better attribution, publication details, etc.

ref #23 not RS

ref #24, needs proper attribution

ref #25, is not RS, it is something that the artcile nominator posted on Wikisopurce, without any proof that it is correct.

ref #26 is correctly formatted.

Matters cited to documents "in your possession" are WP:Original research. Reliable sources are those which readers could access through a library or on the internet.

And so on, please read the WP:RS policy, please find reliable third party sources, and format those that you have dso that they can be properly identified.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Too much peacock language and weasel words
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
The first image File:02@צילום רחל הירש אוקטובר 2005.JPG is not correctly licensed, there is no OTRS ticket showing that the photographer has in fcat granted permission. I have started a deletion discussion at Wiki Commons.

File:חירבה 2-1.jpg and File:חירבת חיזעה1.jpg, File:Loevy Bread.jpg are also incorrectly taggged and licensed, deletion discussion on Wikipedia started.

File:1950's television.jpg doesn't impart any information to the article, also this and the music score sandwich the text awkwardly

File:לחם2.jpg is likely unfree, in view of the others above. Did Loevey actually take this. Is there an OTRS ticket?

File:Hanoch Levin painted bronze 26 cm.jpg is incorrectly attributed, the hebrew version was apparently taken by Yair Talmor and derivitatvie works are not allowed on English Wikipedia

File:Scene from Mr. Mani.jpg is a still from a film, a copyrighted work and it needs an appropriate fair use rationale. The copyright is not that of Loevy but of the production company.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall there is so much wrong with this article that I am surprised that it was ever brought to WP:GAN. Please read the WP:Good article criteria. This style of writing would be fine for a magazine piece but it has no place in an encyclopaedia.

I'm going to fail it now because I believe that there are so many issues that it would not be possible to fix them in the standard week given for articles on hold. I have only touched on the more obvious flaws in point of view writing, original research and lack of sourcing. A more detailed line by line analysis would throw up more. The incorrectly licensed picture are another major issue. If you disagree with this assessment please take this to WP:GAR for a community reassessment. Otherwise please address these problems and then re-nominate at WP:GAN. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]