Talk:Alexander IRL

Alexander IRL was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 15, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander IRL article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

YouTube Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexander IRL/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Improvements needed to meet grammar and prose requirements.

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): due to layout - I'd advise the statements of the cast members about their roles be moved into a new section, entitled "Characters". That could go under Production or be stand-alone. Also to be taken under consideration is merging "Release" and "Production", as the distinction between the two here isn't abundantly clear. I'd also standardize whether you want to portray companies or people writing for them as giving reviews of the movie.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources): Variety is the best source here, it should be expanded. Bustle and Youtube aren't great, those should be phased out wherever possible. Inline citation to Common Sense Media is also good. Citation of MSN is extremely shaky.

c (OR): None found.

d (copyvio and plagiarism): thin ice - some of the quotations are just copied and attributed with breakup in between. Seems fine. Other than that, no copyright problems found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): This article has a lot of room for expansion - other reviews, cast on characters, etc.

b (focused): Focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail - but also leaving out some very necessary detail.
There's more to write - expand the article!
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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): Not sure why the two logos of the disagreeing companies are necessary to include in an image that way. Second image fails pertinence test. First image seems fine, though.
It is possible that relevant media isn't available - a quick search reveals nothing. Nonetheless, the media work here needs improvement.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: I noticed the article is rated as C-class; that seems accurate, although it's on the low C end. This article needs grammar cleanup, expansion on characters and other sections, and fixes to follow the MOS layout style. Definitely don't get discouraged! You put in a lot of effort and it shows. Keep working at it, renominate once you think you've got it down, and we'll take a look again!