Talk:Born Villain (film)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Initial thoughts: Short films are different from feature films. I know there's consensus for the plot/synopsis to be included before all production details on feature film articles, but Born Villain is basically just a glorified music video. And, reading this article, it seems like the 'Background and development' section could be placed before 'Synopsis', and the entire article would read better that way. After reading the lead, I believe the casual reader would be more inclined to think "Hey, Marilyn Manson and Shia LaBeouf collaborated on something?", so it'd be better to elaborate on that before you start delving into plot details. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: This looks like a good quality article, prose-wise, except that there are 23 different uses of "the film". Surely you can find a way to vary that up a bit? "The movie"? Or simply "it", if it's blatantly obvious that you're referring to the Born Villain film (i.e., the article's subject). Also, |accessdate= is a required parameter in sources. I'd suggest adding |accessdate=October 24, 2018 to every active source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I responded to the issues you highlighted. Thanks for your help! Quick question: given that Born Villain has been released on DVD and never got a real theatrical release, do you think it counts as a direct-to-DVD film? If that's the case, I have to add it to more categories.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

That'd be a judgement call. Personally, I've heard of direct-to-DVD films, but I've never heard of a direct-to-DVD short film. If this is a question you want answered, I'd suggest asking here. Homeostasis07 (talk)

After the changes instigated on my suggestions above, and a little bit of a clean-up to the first section, I'm happy that the prose meets the requirements for GA. I'm also happy with the sourcing, in that everything included on the article is available in its cited source, all of which seem WP:RS (in my experience). Tools found no obvious copyvio or plagiarism (above the 10% mark; direct quotations were the primary cause of any source triggered between the 10–15% mark). Also, all images (except for the identifying infobox one), are creative commons, so no problem there. So I'm happy to promote this to GA. Well done, @MagicatthemovieS: Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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: