Talk:Chapter 27/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead needs some work. It's not quite a full summary of the article, could maybe mention the film's plot and production in more detail, and could definitely ditch the paragraph about the similar film.
The plot section reads too much like a blurb or teaser - granted, I haven't seen the film, but I would have to assume it contains a retelling of the killing, which should be summarised as an unfolding plot. Have a look at WP:FILMPLOT for a good guide."The film received substantial accolades from critics who viewed the depiction of the mental state of Mark David Chapman, in the days leading up the murder of John Lennon in December 1980." -> Do you mean "who viewed the depiction..." as in those that watched it, or do you mean they viewed it as being something? This seems like there's something missing here.- I appreciate the difficulty of putting together a plot summary without having the film to hand, so I'll see if I can find a few summaries online that a better plot outline can be based on for this article. GRAPPLE X 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is there a better replacement for ref 11? Sourcing to a forum isn't really reliable, unfortunately. Refs are used well otherwise, though.
- If no replacement source for this material exists, I think it's better to just drop it. Perhaps comment it out (put <!-- before the text, and --> after it) so it's hidden until something reliable turns up. There's still a solid amount of information without the stuff attributed to the forum.
- Is there a better replacement for ref 11? Sourcing to a forum isn't really reliable, unfortunately. Refs are used well otherwise, though.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Barring the aforementioned need to work on the plot, the scope is fine.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutrality is fine.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Stability seems fine.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Images are used well. One is commons, one is non-free with a suitable fair-use rationale.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Although I think this does need a good bit of work, it's still perfectly doable. I'm going to put this one on hold for now, and if you need a hand with some of it just let me know. I'll be of no use to you with the plot, though, is the only thing. GRAPPLE X 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Still a few issues, but after I get back from work tonight I'll help with coming up with a better plot summary to get this going. GRAPPLE X 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Although I think this does need a good bit of work, it's still perfectly doable. I'm going to put this one on hold for now, and if you need a hand with some of it just let me know. I'll be of no use to you with the plot, though, is the only thing. GRAPPLE X 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- What's going on here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh fuck, I dropped the ball on this one. Forgot clean about it. I've had a search, couldn't find any plot summaries for it online, and since neither I nor the author own the film, writing it without aid is out of the question. I've removed the unreliable information, and based on the article as it stands I think this should be alright for a pass. It's not exactly beefy but it puts a tick in more than enough boxes. Sorry again about the wait. GRAPPLE X 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- IMO, since the forum-sourced material involves an actual verbatim sit-down interview with the film's director, it is allowable and it's important info, not easily accessible in other places.
- Also, I have actually seen the film. For a while, the whole thing was on YouTube, but I think it's been taken down now. One might also look for a transcript of the script online. If the forum-sourced material is really going to block this from GA status, I guess we can let it go.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Film still online.
- A Spanish user on YouTube has uploaded a copy with Spanish subtitles and English dialogue under the name "(capítulo 27) legendado". Part 1 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHd1B2lDQEE