Talk:A Man Will Rise/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chapman86 (talk · contribs) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is currently being reviewed. I'm fully aware of the MoS on Wikipedia, so I will take my time with reviewing this article and will note any issues that need addressing. The nominator will be given 7-10 days to carry out the recommended changes to the article. -- Chapman86 (talk) 03:05 October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

• Any information on the film's budget? This isn't a necessity, but it would improve the article.

Lead

• The first paragraph is fine, but I strongly suggest you carefully re-word the entire second paragraph; particularly the part that says "... co-starring alongside Jaa, but in reality, Van Damme was never available due to scheduling issues". This would be better addressed with the use of a semicolon. For example, "... co-starring alongside Jaa; in reality Van Damme was never available...", etc. Also, the part about Lundgren being cast as an alternative. This could do with some rewording.

Background

• This section is very detailed and written quite well! But there are some ways that you can improve this section. Firstly, jumping right into "News of the film" seems too agressive. Try starting with "Under the original title of...", etc. Also, the semicolon I suggested in the lead can also be used for the similar sentence about Van Damme in the "background" section. The rest of this section is written very well, but I suggest you read over it and make sure you aren't jumping back and forth on things; this can be confusing to Wikipedia readers!

Cast

• There is only one issue with this section. The part saying "Tony Jaa as the Protagonist" doesn't seem professional. As this film was never released and was only partly finished, I'm assuming that his characters name is unknown in the film? If so, it would be better just to state "unknown"; you have already done this with one of the other actors in the film, so why not here?

References

• There are no issues with this section.

External links

• As with the previous section, this is fine.

I will give you up to 7 days to improve this article, but considering the size of this article, I would expect the relevant edits to be done quite fast. This article is very close to passing, so good luck Metal121! If you have any questions, feel free to message! -- Chapman86 (talk) 03:46 October 12, 2015 (UTC)

GA list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Chapman86, I have made the recommended edits. I searched for information on the film's budget, but nothing could be found; I did notice information on IMDB, but you know as well as I do that it isn't a reputable source and cannot be trusted. I tried looking for more information on the cast members and the characters while I was at it, but it looks as if the film didn't get far enough into production for any of that information to be released. I think I've done everything you've asked, but if not, message me any time! I'll probably be on Wikipedia for a few more hours and will get back reasonably quickly. -- Metal121 (talk) 04:36 October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Metal121, you have addressed all of my recommendations. For that reason I am going to pass your GA nomination! Even though the article isn't large, it is as detailed and as up-to-date as it can possibly be (for a cancelled production). This is a very good article, but as this is about a recently cancelled film (from within the last few years), the article will automatically be delisted from GA status if the film ever resumes production. If the film ever re-enters production, I suggest that you update this article after the film's release to re-achieve the article's GA status. On another note, why don't you take the article to the Guild of Copy-editors and it copy-edited by a third-party? Keep up the good work! -- Chapman86 (talk) 04:54 October 12, 2015 (UTC)