Talk:Esprit d'amour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bollyjeff (talk · contribs) 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC) I will be reviewing this. BollyJeff | talk 13:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Weak points:

• Lead section
  • Does not fully summarize the article
  • Jyutping gives a phonetic spelling af jam1 joeng4 co3. This name is not mentioned anywhere else in the article except the IMDB link name. It should be clarified.

• Plot summary is too long at 900+ words. Typical is 400-700

• Nomination section should be further down in article, like after release.
• IMDB is not reliable for just about anything except cast list and release dates, and the cinemasie ref does not list the song title. Another source would be nice.

• Writing and inspiration section
  • Almost entirely attributed to a single WP:PRIMARY source
  • The other source does not include the correct page number (38)

• Casting - again all WP:PRIMARY, and the two citations 4 and 5 look to be the same except that one does not have a time - they should be combined with all the correct times.

• Music - I do not see any of this info is the source given

• Critical reception
  • source for running dates is dead
  • box office Hit' text is not in the source given, and would be primary even if it was
  • 275 reviews? - This is supposed to be critical reception - we need reviews by critics, not popular votes
  • Is screenjunkies WP:RELIABLE?
  • channelx source does not mention this film by name

• Home media - Undue weight is given to this section (and half of the citations are for this section), making the article unbalanced

• References - a lot of yesasia in there, again too dominant on the home media, I would say many more reliable sources are needed here overall

• External links
  • shouldn't review link be incorporated into critical reception section, if it's reliable
  • inconsistent italics
  • inconsistent naming (this should be addressed by my comments on the lead)
  • Hong Kong Movie DataBase dead link?

Overall I don't think this is good enough, especially when compared with other film GA articles. I will leave this open for now, but I doubt that a week would be enough time to improve it sufficiently. BollyJeff | talk 14:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

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

---

This article has shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria, and is not up to par with other film GAs that I have seen.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Missing sections normally found in film articles, and lead has issues. See WP:MOSFILM.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   More sources are needed. Some failed verification. Very little of the info is backed up by reliable third party sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not broad at all.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I am unsure if you can use images from IMDB. If you are aware that this has been discussed and approved, please provide a link for me.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold, but heading towards fail without drastic improvement.

While many constructive changes have been made in the last week, I am going to have to fail the review at this time. The article still seems unbalanced and not broad enough in its content, and light on reliable third party sources. It does not match up well against other GA foreign film articles that I have seen. BollyJeff | talk 16:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)