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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made several minor fixes myself. Unfortunately this article currently falls fairly short of GA status; i'm putting this on hold for 7 days so the nominator has a chance to address the issues. I've reviewed everything except checking for copyright violations/close paraphrasing, which I currently cannot do as duplicates detector appears to be down and I don't have the time to do it manually. I'll get to that at some later stage as there are plenty of other things that need improving at this article. Freikorp (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As most of the issues were addressed by the nominator, I took it upon myself to fix the few remaining ones, and expanded the accolades and home media sections for good measure. I'm passing this now. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead: The lead is undersized. As per WP:LEAD, the lead must summarise the article, yet there is no mention of production, release or reception.

   Plot: Plot section is grossly oversized - currently at over 1100 words. As per WP:FILMPLOT, this must be shortened to between 400 and 700 words, ideally between 500 and 600, before this can be passed. I've added the 'long plot' tag to the article accordingly.

   Production: Good, i'm satisfied this section meets GA criteria.

   Release: " The New York Times Magazine later said of Page's performance, "a star was born"." - this belongs in the reception section.

   Information about the DVD belongs in a separate "Home media" section - see WP:MOSFILM.

   Reception: The length of this section is good, however, Steve Schneider and Roger Ebert are both given too much weight, Schneider in particular. Shorten both to at least the length that Steve Persall is given, or less than that. All three reviews should probably be combined into one paragraph.

   Accolades: The only source for this sub-section is dead. You need a new reference for this section.

   In popular culture: This section is unreferenced. I've added a no references tag accordingly. If you can't find a reliable sources for this, this entire section should be deleted.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   External links checks finds an additional reference is dead and one redirects; both of these need to be fixed.

   You need to standardise your references. You have different access date formats, e.g. 'Retrieved 2007-10-20' and 'Retrieved June 30, 2014'. Furthermore some references don't have access dates at all; you need to pick one consistent style, preferably either 'June 30, 2014' or 30 June 2014'. You also have three different formatting styles for site names, e.g. name not in italics (Box Office Mojo); name in italics (The New York Times Magazine); URL in italics (sandraohnews.com). You need to pick one and stick with it. That being said, sandraohnews.com is a fan site, and is therefore unreliable and should be deleted. The reference 'Lionsgate Drops a Massive Load of Horror Blu-rays in October - Blair Witch and More!' isn't formatted at all! There is a review in the external links sections; this either need to be integrated into the article as a reference or deleted. The 'audio commentary' and 'DVD featurette' references need more details - consider formatting them using Template:Cite AV media.All these issues need to be fixed before this can be passed.

   C. No original research:

   Aside from what I have already mentioned regarding the pop culture section being unreferenced, this is all good.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Both the 'Release' and 'accolades' sections, as well as the 'home media' section that needs to be created could use some expanding, though there may be limited information out there to do this. So it's not a GA issue.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   No signs of obvious bias, though it wouldn't hurt to add a negative review of the film to the reception section, considering 32% of the 138 reviews were negative.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Poster image has sufficient fair-use rationale.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: