Talk:Loose Change (film)/GA Review 1

These are just some suggestions of things that should be fixed before another reviewer looks it over. The first image needs a fair use rationale and a film infobox should also be added. The second and third images look like they are about to be deleted, and probably should be removed from the article anyway, as it is likely they will not qualify for fair use. There are a few sections that rely on the bullet lists, and some of these should be converted to prose. Please consider fixing these things before the article is reviewed, as at least the lack of a fair use rationale is grounds for failing the article. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the original version was released in 2005, should I change the name of the article to 2005? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article. I'm not 'officially' reviewing this: just some observations.

• Airings' and 'In other media' should be converted to prose.
• I'd like to see the references developed to include access date: using the cite templates would help, but if you don't opt for them try to include the information they might present: Author, Title, Work, Date, Date accessed.
• Per badlydrawnjeff's review from a previous GA nom, the article contains some dodgy sources.
• Images need fair use rationale.

Good luck, and well done so far. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Three suggestions I have for this:

• More sources, and possibly further expansion, for the "history" section.
• Creation of a proper "reaction" section incorporating the current "Criticism" section.
• Complete the sourcing of, and/or possibly liquidate (it's a bit triviaish), the "In other media" section.

Please consider. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Nehrams request that the lead image needs a Fair Use rationale, the article could be failed because of this alone, (It is currently at the front of the line for oldest articles on the GAC page) and I think that'd be a shame when its such an easy problem to fix. Homestarmy 23:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify, just saying where it came from isn't the same as spelling out an individual fair use rationale. Homestarmy 23:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the article could be failed as a lot of the above concerns remain unaddressed. I'd encourage its editors to begin working on them ASAP. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I know I might sound like a broken drum right now, but it looks like the second image also doesn't have a real Fair Use rationale written for it, it just says what the image is and where it came from, not why its usage qualifies as fair use. Homestarmy 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has too far to go to make it to GA, and as others have looked at it and made comments without much improvement there is no need for a hold.

• Reasons for fail:
  • As now marked, there are entire sections lacking references, including the largest section. Simply watching the movie and then descriping what one saw is original research. A reliable third party source must be used.
  • External links: Part of the WP:MOS covers external links, both inline and in a seperate section. Please read and note that external links are to be kept to a minimu and see if the External links section meets that criteria.

Aditionally, the previously mentioned items by other editors need to be addressed. Also, in the lead there is a reference to the film coming out on pay-per-view. Is this needed, should we also say where the DVDs are available to but? It looks more like advertising than content needed in a encyclopedia. Overall, this article does cite quite a few items, but it needs many more. Aboutmovies 20:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)