GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I've looked through this article with the intention of reviewing it, but it appears to require a quickfail per
WP:QF. I'll elaborate below with more details, but there are immediate issues that should be resolved prior to a GA nomination.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Would beshould be was,
Would portrayshould be portrayed, etc
I have not closely looked at the sources, but there are multiple sources listed as generally unreliable at WP:RS/P: The New York Post, We Got This Covered, SportsSkeeda (used twice), and Discogs
This criterion is the reason that a quickfail is required. Criterion 3b reads: it stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style).
At 14,498 words, this article is pushing against the recommended limit of the broadest, most widely covered topics. As described by
WP:LENGTH, articles of this length begin to cause not only readability issues, but also make maintenance unrealistic and can cause technical issues for readers on older devices. Realistically, this article probably needs to be reduced in size by at least one third.
Condensing the paragraphs in these longer sections could help. I'd take some of them and condense them down to 2–3 sentences that just have the paragraph's main idea without including trivia, minor details, or blow by blow accounts of events. I'll commend the article for generally sticking to an out of universe perspective, so there's not really outright WP:FANCRUFT to be removed, but where it does appear it should be cut. I also notice that some of these longer sections are as long as they are because they cover each film in detail. An article about a fictional character should cover the general use of the character rather than specifics of every appearance. If you don't want to delete this material, you could probably move it to the respective film articles and then leave a general 1–2 paragraph summary of the overall info on this article.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I've looked through this article with the intention of reviewing it, but it appears to require a quickfail per
WP:QF. I'll elaborate below with more details, but there are immediate issues that should be resolved prior to a GA nomination.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Would beshould be was,
Would portrayshould be portrayed, etc
I have not closely looked at the sources, but there are multiple sources listed as generally unreliable at WP:RS/P: The New York Post, We Got This Covered, SportsSkeeda (used twice), and Discogs
This criterion is the reason that a quickfail is required. Criterion 3b reads: it stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style).
At 14,498 words, this article is pushing against the recommended limit of the broadest, most widely covered topics. As described by
WP:LENGTH, articles of this length begin to cause not only readability issues, but also make maintenance unrealistic and can cause technical issues for readers on older devices. Realistically, this article probably needs to be reduced in size by at least one third.
Condensing the paragraphs in these longer sections could help. I'd take some of them and condense them down to 2–3 sentences that just have the paragraph's main idea without including trivia, minor details, or blow by blow accounts of events. I'll commend the article for generally sticking to an out of universe perspective, so there's not really outright WP:FANCRUFT to be removed, but where it does appear it should be cut. I also notice that some of these longer sections are as long as they are because they cover each film in detail. An article about a fictional character should cover the general use of the character rather than specifics of every appearance. If you don't want to delete this material, you could probably move it to the respective film articles and then leave a general 1–2 paragraph summary of the overall info on this article.