Talk:Money No Enough/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 22:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose style seems fine to me. One thing I noticed though was the line "In total, the film made S$5.8 million, and remains the best Singapore box office showing by a local movie bettered only by two foreign films". Mention the two films here, for the sake of completeness.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead need some work, as it should summarise the entire article. I'd add in some information about the film's reception (just sum it up as "the film received positive/mixed/negative reception upon release..."). Also, the Cast section either should be expanded (add in some information about, say, the casting of each of those roles) or it should be removed, as it currently does nothing that the infobox doesn't already do.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Your references are used well, but the actual citations are a bit bare. If you have access to the articles used to cite these things, then you should add in the author for each one. Also I'd link the publisher where possible.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope seems okay. It's brief but it's well-balanced in its coverage.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrality seems grand.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article history is stable.
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:
Sole image is grand, it has a solid rationale and is used appropriately.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm going to put this article on hold until the issues raised are addressed. The 1B issues are the primary concerns, but I'd like to see the citations bulked out a bit too. Authors should be listed where available. You might also find it useful to use {{Cite news}}, {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite web}} to keep them uniform, although the plain text versions you've been using are currently uniform with each other as they are. It's up to you on that one.

Thanks for the review, Grapple X! Please give me several days to fully address your concerns, as I am also working on Pathlight School while serving my National Service. For now, my responses are:

A reference has just been added to the Cast section. Is that enough to make the Cast section more useful than the infobox? Expanding the section would require either original research or repeating information already in the Plot section.
I also rewrote a sentence in the lead section to add mention of critical reception. What other information should be added to the lead section?
What do you mean by wanting to see the citations bulked out? Will recheck my reference collection and add author information where available. Not using citation templates was a stylistic choice.

I hope to hear from you soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead looks okay now. It's about the right length for the length of the article, and splitting it into paragraphs would make it look bitty. When I say "bulk out" the references, I just mean to add the authors for the articles you're citing, and to wikilink any publications you can. As for the cast, it's really that there should be some information in there about each role you mention - a bit like this, this or this - otherwise the section is only going to repeat information from elsewhere. Maybe the best thing to do for now is it comment-tag it (put  after it). This will keep it in the page's code but hide it from view so when you have more information to add to it you can recover it without having to track it down again. I'm aware that there's not going to be a huge amount of material to work with for it so a sentence or two for the three main roles would be ideal really. If you need some help with it don't be afraid to ask. GRAPPLE X 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove the Cast section. The citations now contain author information, where available, and the first mention of each newspaper is linked. Last but not least, I specified the two foreign films. What do you mean by "seems/is grand" and what else needs to be done for this article to attain GA status? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, 'grand' means 'good'. I'm happy with the changes here. I'll pass the article now. Well done! GRAPPLE X 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! If you would be interested in reading (or even reviewing) another Singapore-related article, do check out my other GAN, Xiaxue (Pathlight School remains under construction). All the best to you! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]