![]() | Dazed and Confused (film) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 23, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Dazed and Confused (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 June 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
|
|
As far as I'm aware, the guidelines say "top billed actors" if there are none on the poster block. There are no opening credits for the film so those mentioned in the infobox are those whose names and characters appear in photos at the end. IMDB (no great source I know) has a lot more actors credited so who is to say who should go into the infobox and who shouldn't? I agree it looks top heavy but half of those that have been removed have articles of their own. Quentin X ( talk) 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dazed and Confused (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
forgot Rene Zellweger. 98.20.70.16 ( talk) 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Lbal ( talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: Yoshiman6464 ( talk . contribs) I will plan to review this article; section by section; citation by citation. I'll send you a review within a week. 20:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for the MASSIVE delay; I got busy with family and work in the past month. Anyways, I went through the article. It is VERY close to being a good article. However, there are some issues with the article that prevent this article from being good.
1. Well written?
a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
c. it contains no original research
d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3.Broad in its coverage:
a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
a.media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Overall, you are close to having a good article. But this article needs more details.
Yoshiman6464
♫🥚 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Lbal ( talk) 02:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC).
![]() | Dazed and Confused (film) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: May 23, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Dazed and Confused (film) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 June 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
|
|
As far as I'm aware, the guidelines say "top billed actors" if there are none on the poster block. There are no opening credits for the film so those mentioned in the infobox are those whose names and characters appear in photos at the end. IMDB (no great source I know) has a lot more actors credited so who is to say who should go into the infobox and who shouldn't? I agree it looks top heavy but half of those that have been removed have articles of their own. Quentin X ( talk) 14:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dazed and Confused (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
forgot Rene Zellweger. 98.20.70.16 ( talk) 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Lbal ( talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Reviewer: Yoshiman6464 ( talk . contribs) I will plan to review this article; section by section; citation by citation. I'll send you a review within a week. 20:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for the MASSIVE delay; I got busy with family and work in the past month. Anyways, I went through the article. It is VERY close to being a good article. However, there are some issues with the article that prevent this article from being good.
1. Well written?
a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
c. it contains no original research
d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3.Broad in its coverage:
a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic
b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
a.media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Overall, you are close to having a good article. But this article needs more details.
Yoshiman6464
♫🥚 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Lbal ( talk) 02:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC).