Talk:Big Fish/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- Currently fails WP:MOSFILMS: plot is currently 962 words, well past the 400-700 words it should be. Much of this could probably be addressed by tightening the prose as its overly wordy.
Fixed The cast only repeats the plot, which goes against guidelines. If no casting information is available, move who played what into plot and drop the section. Release should be for theatrical and home video release only. Currently its a blend of release (middle of the section), and Reception. Needs to be split. Conversely, release can be a subsection under Reception as seen in the MoS, but should be clearly split from actual reception information. Section is also misordered; box office performance and awards should be first, critical reviews last.
- Trimmed plot and cast section to bare minimum (not all characters are mentioned in summary).
- Currently fails WP:MOSFILMS: plot is currently 962 words, well past the 400-700 words it should be. Much of this could probably be addressed by tightening the prose as its overly wordy.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Production appears to be missing a reference or two, but I suspect its more an issue of misplaced ones. Fixed What makes ReelTalk a reliable source? Why is the UK RottenTomatoes being used for a US film? What makes DVD Active a reliable source? Yahoo Movies is not the best source to use for the film awards. More reliable sources are available, preferable the actual award sites.
- Why isn't Yahoo reliable? ReelTalk was linked by Rotten Tomatoes, the UK url for RT is only because that's how it works on my computer, and DVD Active is a very popular website for DVD information. Alientraveller (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yahoo isn't giving any info on where it gets that information, but it looks like its pulled from IMDB. It would be better to use official sources. DVD Active being popular does not necessarily mean it is reliable. How does it meet WP:RS? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it gets sent DVD images that are always real, it must be reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- That does not make any source reliable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- If it gets sent DVD images that are always real, it must be reliable. Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yahoo isn't giving any info on where it gets that information, but it looks like its pulled from IMDB. It would be better to use official sources. DVD Active being popular does not necessarily mean it is reliable. How does it meet WP:RS? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why isn't Yahoo reliable? ReelTalk was linked by Rotten Tomatoes, the UK url for RT is only because that's how it works on my computer, and DVD Active is a very popular website for DVD information. Alientraveller (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Production appears to be missing a reference or two, but I suspect its more an issue of misplaced ones.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Any more critical reviews available for use?
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- For the most part, the issues with this article appear to be fairly quick and easy to fix. The main issues are the plot and the sourcing issues. The other MoS issues can be fixed within minutes, I'm sure. I would have gone ahead and did that myself, but the sourcing issues and plot cutting are best done by someone more familiar with this material. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
A few issues were fixed (as noted above), but the rest remain and no other effort appears to be underway. As such, the article has been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)