Talk:Che (2008 film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Four images currently used in the article under a claim of fair-use.

I would recommend please cutting that down to a maximum of three. Please also standardize the image pages using {{Non-free use rationale}}. It appears from the image pages that some of the articles claimed as fair-use, have since been redirected back into this one. I will do the Stability review after the above is addressed. Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I standardized the image pages for 1 and 3 and removed 2 and 4 as per your suggestions.--J.D. (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! On to a quick check for a Stability review next, then full review itself, shouldn't take long. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

Upon inspection of edit history, I did not see major problems going back over one month. However, on inspection of talk page history there does seem to have been some conflict and discussion about a few major issues: Merger proposal, FMAFan and reverts over sentence, Article Reads Biased - granted these issues from the talk page are all over a month old - so I am just looking for a brief explanation and to make sure these things have all been worked out. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the merger thing goes, I think there was a unanimous decision to delete the two separate articles for The Argentine and Guerrilla as all of the info they contain is already in the Che article. I think the issue was that no one who voted knew how to delete those articles or the process to have them deleted. You could help in facilitating this?

As for the FMAFan thing, no one could come up with concrete proof or a reliable source for the film being part of Focus Features. So, I would say that issue is a dead one.

The Biased issue was already addressed. There are plenty of reviews that show the negative reaction some critics had to the film. And there's also a section dedicated to some protests that faced the film in Miami and also inclusion of the divided reaction it got a NYC screening.--J.D. (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I will move on to the overall review itself next. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 13, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, however I would suggest some minor tweaks like changing subsection title "Reaction" to "Reception" or "Critical reception", and also avoiding continued use of the word "reaction" in the other subsection titles.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very thorough, covering major aspects of production, plot, reception, etc.

4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone.

5. Article stability? See above.

6. Images?: See above.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Cirt (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]