This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 91 days
![]() |
![]() | Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon 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: October 17, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems to me the article by Mike Leeder at ImpactOnline is not a reliable source seeing as Leeder is a producer (therefore essentially an employee) for Albert Pyun [1]. While ImpactOnline may or may not be a reliable source, an interview/article written by Leeder re: Pyun most certainly has bias and point-of-view problems. Sprinkler21 ( talk) 20:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Sprinkler21
I'll write down here things I'd like to change so that we don't waste time reverting and re-editing each other:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Writing style is actually pretty good. Only a few minor quibbles here: Please wikilink first instance of actor's name in Plot sect. I think the quotes in the Reception sect and the Settlement sect can be paraphrased instead of direct quotations. Please consult GA toolbox link Copyvio detector for helpful ideas about how to trim quotes. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Not sure this looks like best organizational layout, please consult WP:MOSFILM for some better ideas. In Production sect, you have mixed up Filming info as if it began before Casting info which appears later. Again, please see WP:MOSFILM for the order this should be presented. Good model at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Per WP:LEAD, please expand lede sect a bit more to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. I'd say maybe three paragraphs, with four sentences each. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Per WP:LEADCITE, no need for cites in lede intro sect please. Is this a USA film or European film? Please use Month Day, Year -- format for dates in cites, as I think this is predominantly a USA film, yes? |
![]() |
2b. 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). | Cite 22 and 23 need some work, please standardize with WP:CIT templates. You have some cites archived with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive, about half, but not all. IFF you're going to do that (and you should) for ease of standardization and uniformity, please do that for the rest of them, as well, by adding archiveurl and archivedate fields to cites. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article seems to rely predominantly on secondary sources, throughout. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I feel like the article could go into more detail on the Production sect. If that's truly a reflection of the full corpus of all the secondary source coverage that's out there, okay, but I'm left feeling like there could be a little bit more here. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good focus for article, perhaps a little bit too much WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on the Controversy sect, might want to try trimming that down a bit more. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See above re Controversy sect. Please also retitle Controversy sect to Litigation. It is objective that Litigation occurred, but it is subjective that it was a Controversy. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article looks like it has been stable for over one month ... but I'm seeing some prior reverting going on at 6 September 2015 and at 16 September 2015 between Sprinkler21 and Daß Wölf, would appreciate just a brief summary or comment upon what that was about please? |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | File:Max Havoc CotD poster.jpg - please see File:Loham film poster.jpg for an idea on how to write a better fair-use-rationale on the image page. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues here. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold for Seven Day period of time, after which we'll have to come back and reevaluate status. — Cirt ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
— Cirt ( talk) 02:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed as GA. Thanks very much to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt ( talk) 03:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
GA Reviewer here -- I've archived some old threads on this talk page so as to help better assess stability and look at only current ongoing issues at present.
Metric used was archived threads older and with zero activity or new responses for over one (1) year.
They may now be seen in the link at the talk header at the top of this page.
— Cirt ( talk) 11:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is a discussion tangential to the article. Daß Wölf ( talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 91 days
![]() |
![]() | Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon 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: October 17, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems to me the article by Mike Leeder at ImpactOnline is not a reliable source seeing as Leeder is a producer (therefore essentially an employee) for Albert Pyun [1]. While ImpactOnline may or may not be a reliable source, an interview/article written by Leeder re: Pyun most certainly has bias and point-of-view problems. Sprinkler21 ( talk) 20:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Sprinkler21
I'll write down here things I'd like to change so that we don't waste time reverting and re-editing each other:
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cirt ( talk · contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. —
Cirt (
talk) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Writing style is actually pretty good. Only a few minor quibbles here: Please wikilink first instance of actor's name in Plot sect. I think the quotes in the Reception sect and the Settlement sect can be paraphrased instead of direct quotations. Please consult GA toolbox link Copyvio detector for helpful ideas about how to trim quotes. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Not sure this looks like best organizational layout, please consult WP:MOSFILM for some better ideas. In Production sect, you have mixed up Filming info as if it began before Casting info which appears later. Again, please see WP:MOSFILM for the order this should be presented. Good model at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Per WP:LEAD, please expand lede sect a bit more to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. I'd say maybe three paragraphs, with four sentences each. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Per WP:LEADCITE, no need for cites in lede intro sect please. Is this a USA film or European film? Please use Month Day, Year -- format for dates in cites, as I think this is predominantly a USA film, yes? |
![]() |
2b. 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). | Cite 22 and 23 need some work, please standardize with WP:CIT templates. You have some cites archived with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive, about half, but not all. IFF you're going to do that (and you should) for ease of standardization and uniformity, please do that for the rest of them, as well, by adding archiveurl and archivedate fields to cites. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article seems to rely predominantly on secondary sources, throughout. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I feel like the article could go into more detail on the Production sect. If that's truly a reflection of the full corpus of all the secondary source coverage that's out there, okay, but I'm left feeling like there could be a little bit more here. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Good focus for article, perhaps a little bit too much WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on the Controversy sect, might want to try trimming that down a bit more. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | See above re Controversy sect. Please also retitle Controversy sect to Litigation. It is objective that Litigation occurred, but it is subjective that it was a Controversy. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article looks like it has been stable for over one month ... but I'm seeing some prior reverting going on at 6 September 2015 and at 16 September 2015 between Sprinkler21 and Daß Wölf, would appreciate just a brief summary or comment upon what that was about please? |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | File:Max Havoc CotD poster.jpg - please see File:Loham film poster.jpg for an idea on how to write a better fair-use-rationale on the image page. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No issues here. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | GA on Hold for Seven Day period of time, after which we'll have to come back and reevaluate status. — Cirt ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt ( talk) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
— Cirt ( talk) 02:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed as GA. Thanks very much to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt ( talk) 03:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
GA Reviewer here -- I've archived some old threads on this talk page so as to help better assess stability and look at only current ongoing issues at present.
Metric used was archived threads older and with zero activity or new responses for over one (1) year.
They may now be seen in the link at the talk header at the top of this page.
— Cirt ( talk) 11:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is a discussion tangential to the article. Daß Wölf ( talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)