Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be reviewing this article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

1. Well-written: (a) prose is clear and spelling/grammar is correct (b) manual of style guidelines ask for logical quotations. I'm unsure about dashes (reviewing this now WP:DASH).
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: See notes below.
3. Broad in its coverage: Broad, yes.
4. Neutral.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated: some non-free images that appear to be only decoration. See notes below.

Because this is a broad topic, I will be taking it section by section. Signed maclean (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes as I review

• General
  • Each paragraph should be dealing with (and developing) one main point, thought, or idea. As such, at least one source/citation should be provided for every paragraph pointing the reader to where this particular point is coming from. I understand there are relevant sources listed at the end of the article, but I would like to see in-line citations linking the paragraph points/thoughts/ideas to specific sources. In the notes below I will list places that require in-line citations per the WP:GA? criteria: "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements".
  • The writing is clear. Be careful of the academic tone since this is supposed to be encyclopedic writing. Off-hand editorializing like "now often overlooked" may be ok in academic papers but should be avoided here.
  • I think the "Approaches to defining noir" section should be moved up before the historical narrative. I was reading "this movie is noir, etc." without really knowing what the elements/themes of are.
• "Problems of definition"
  • The second paragraph, "While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing.") - controversial statements, direct the reader to a paper on the debate about noir 'genre'.
  • Third paragraph, "...scholars in the field, such as film historian Thomas Schatz, treat it..." - published opinion, should have a citation that links Schatz to the attributes he is being given.
  • Third paragraph: same with "Alain Silver, the most widely published American critic specializing in film noir studies, refers to it as a "cycle" and a "phenomenon," even as he argues..." - published opinion, provide a citation that links Silver to the attributes he is being given here.
  • Third paragraph, a citation is given for someone referring to noir as a "mood,"[5], but can an example be provided of someone calling it a "movement," or a "series,"? - quotations.

This is actually not surprising. Promotional photographs were frequently distributed without copyright notice, as was required for copyright protection under U.S. law prior to 1978. The idea, after all, was to have the photos published as frequently and widely as possible, in order to generate publicity for the income-producing property: the film itself.—DCGeist (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Approaches to defining noir"
  • Is there a source that addresses these fundamental questions? Examples of film critics who hold one position or another would be great.
  • "...some critics insist that a film noir, to be authentic, must have a bleak conclusion..." - can an example of a critic who holds this position be provided?
  • In "Visual style", "...are regarded as noir by varying numbers of critics." - can examples of these critics be provided?
  • "dubbed "film soleil" by critic D. K. Holm" - provide a citation to link Holm to this quote.
  • In "Worldview", "Film noir is often described as essentially pessimistic." - is there a source that discusses this?

I've attempted to address the variety of issues in this section. Please take another look and let me know how you think it stands.—DCGeist (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making amazing progress! I'll re-read the article tomorrow. --maclean (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Original sources checked for all quotations. Logical quotations now applied throughout.—DCGeist (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Notes

• I may be pushing your patience here, but can you clarify a few writing issues:
  • In "Problems of definition", "Nor does it rely on anything as evident as the monstrous or supernatural elements of the horror film, the speculative leaps of the science fiction film, or the song-and-dance routines of the musical." - is this sentence referring to Film Noir, or is this just a general statement. Perhaps clarify what "it" refers to.

Edited for clarity, replacing "it" with "film noir".—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is there any particular reason for section title "The classic period"? Could it be changed to "Classic period"?

Done.—DCGeist (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • In the lead, could you include some examples of film noir movies. Nino Frank isn't mentioned in the article. Include some examples where it says "...what constitutes noir's essential characteristics...". The lead is very concise but does cover every topic.

Examples included. Reference to scholarly debate moved and recast to focus on primary topic of debate ("genre" or not). I see the reference to Frank as falling into the category of "specific fact...appear[ing] in the lead only." He needs to be name-checked, but he doesn't need to be repeated--and there's no truly natural place to bring him into the main text.—DCGeist (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be appropriate to name Frank alongside Borde and Chaumeton in the beginning.maclean (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Notes", The location of Note 1 in the third paragraph of "Approaches to defining noir" seems out-of-place. Perhaps use it at the first instance of the plural.

Conclusion

Congratulations, this is a remarkable article. It is, in my opinion, FA worthy. Scholarly work all the way. maclean (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]