GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm going to review this nomination. My method is to give overall comments on the article, review it section by section, suggest improvements, check all the references and finally compare to the Good Article Criteria. I'll leave a note on the nominator's talkpage when I'm ready for your response. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a well known film and receives 2580 views per day. It has been around since 2004 well before the film was released, and created by an IP. There is no history in its move log. There have been many editors performing expansions in the past 10 years, most recently on 7 January 2014 by Koala15 (the nominator). As the protection log shows, the page has not been immune to attacks of vandalism and has endured edit wars and instability, but as the latest protection was two years and one day ago, it's not a concern. It has been nominated for both FA and GA in the past, but they were in 2006 when it looked like this, so obviously there has been much improvement. There are no ambiguous internal links but two dead external links are within (I'll mention those later). Overall, the article's shape, structure and content look good when scrolled through but we'll see what the detailed examination brings up.
The rest of the lead is OK, and there are some interesting facts there as well as some references, so that gives you some up-points.
The plot section is always a hairy subject in Wikipedia film or book articles, but I think it's been done right in this instance. It conveys all the important points and essential story parts without turning into a spoiler and also uses developed vocabulary, something not often seen here. The links are moderately placed and aren't too pushy with the reader. In fact, I don't think I have any criticisms of it.
It's an alright list, with some refs.
All appears to be good. Some interesting facts and images included, such as the work-in-progress screenshot (is there a better name for a non-computer screen frame?). Pretty much every claim is referenced and also there are quite a few quotes in the prose.
Quite a short section, but it is mainly dealt with in a dedicated article which the section links to. Important points are mentioned - famous artists and key song. All referenced again.
Long-windedly summarizes what people thought. The Tl;Dr is in the first sentence and the rest is full of refs.
This appears to have quite a wide scope, and I'm sure there are many car related movies and man-finds-abandoned-town movies. This needs narrowing and an image.
The see also section has too much white space, jig it around a bit. However, there are not too many things wrong with this article and I think it will pass. Next comes analysis of the references. Done
If there is no comment on a ref assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.
If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm going to review this nomination. My method is to give overall comments on the article, review it section by section, suggest improvements, check all the references and finally compare to the Good Article Criteria. I'll leave a note on the nominator's talkpage when I'm ready for your response. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 20:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is about a well known film and receives 2580 views per day. It has been around since 2004 well before the film was released, and created by an IP. There is no history in its move log. There have been many editors performing expansions in the past 10 years, most recently on 7 January 2014 by Koala15 (the nominator). As the protection log shows, the page has not been immune to attacks of vandalism and has endured edit wars and instability, but as the latest protection was two years and one day ago, it's not a concern. It has been nominated for both FA and GA in the past, but they were in 2006 when it looked like this, so obviously there has been much improvement. There are no ambiguous internal links but two dead external links are within (I'll mention those later). Overall, the article's shape, structure and content look good when scrolled through but we'll see what the detailed examination brings up.
The rest of the lead is OK, and there are some interesting facts there as well as some references, so that gives you some up-points.
The plot section is always a hairy subject in Wikipedia film or book articles, but I think it's been done right in this instance. It conveys all the important points and essential story parts without turning into a spoiler and also uses developed vocabulary, something not often seen here. The links are moderately placed and aren't too pushy with the reader. In fact, I don't think I have any criticisms of it.
It's an alright list, with some refs.
All appears to be good. Some interesting facts and images included, such as the work-in-progress screenshot (is there a better name for a non-computer screen frame?). Pretty much every claim is referenced and also there are quite a few quotes in the prose.
Quite a short section, but it is mainly dealt with in a dedicated article which the section links to. Important points are mentioned - famous artists and key song. All referenced again.
Long-windedly summarizes what people thought. The Tl;Dr is in the first sentence and the rest is full of refs.
This appears to have quite a wide scope, and I'm sure there are many car related movies and man-finds-abandoned-town movies. This needs narrowing and an image.
The see also section has too much white space, jig it around a bit. However, there are not too many things wrong with this article and I think it will pass. Next comes analysis of the references. Done
If there is no comment on a ref assume I have reviewed it and found no problems.
If you can put a tick after or strike through any items which have been addressed that would be useful. Rcsprinter (orate) @ 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)