Talk:Short Term 12/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Corvoe (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be reviewing tonight. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corvoe's review

Well, it's only 11:44pm where I live, so I'm not a liar. Here we go!

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
In Plot, references to "the film" need to be removed. In Release, "75 venues" should be "75 theaters", and "domestic" is a word to watch; try "North American". In Reception, "Brie Larson's performance in particular has garnered wide critical acclaim" is also a bit muddy, as there isn't a source that backs this up. She was undoubtedly praised, and mentioning that is fine, but I'd remove critical acclaim without a source. Maybe "was singled out for praise by critics" or something similar. "...going on to add" is also redundant, still in the Reception section. Also, not sure this belongs under here but I don't know where else to put it, I think adding Peter Bradshaw's negative review in The Guardian would be good, just to show an opposite side from the heaps of praise it received.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Lead is excellent. Release and Reception should be merged (neither is big enough), and an expanded box office subsection would be beneficial.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Mostly well-sourced. Two things: what makes this a reliable source? Not only does it appear unreliable on its own, it appears to thank a blog that is entirely unreliable for its information. Surely a better source than this exists. And a quick note, FN 4 needs page numbers. I would recommend using {{rp}} and add the page numbers in-text, but adding them individually is an option as well.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Article flows very well, stays on topic. Accolades definitely need their own article, so I'll probably make that soon, but that's not a deal-breaker.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Nitrogen is more unstable than this article.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Poster has fair use data.

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Poster is the only image. Perhaps put an image of Larson in the Reception section, noting that critics singled her out for praise, or an image of Destin Daniel Cretton in the Production section. Or both. I'd say both.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ~~This article is also extremely close to GA, but is in need of a bit more work. You're not far away, 97198! I'll put it on hold so you can make the necessary changes. Corvoe ^{(be heard)}~~ ~~03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Passed! All concerns have been addressed. Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: Thanks as always for the thorough review and useful suggestions. I think I've made (pretty much) all the changes you suggested - and thanks for making a start on it yourself! I think the only thing I didn't tackle was the last sentence of the plot section, since I wasn't sure how to rewrite it from an in-universe perspective. Really, although it's a nice bookend for the film itself, it doesn't add much to the reader's understanding of the plot so perhaps it can just be removed... What do you think? And if you're to planning to embark on a separate accolades article, I'd be more than happy to collaborate. :) 97198 (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: I'm probably going to make the basis for it this weekend (meaning copying the table, adding the infobox, and pretty much copy-pasting the lead), so I'll be sure to let you know when I do that. I would say that it's removable information, and I'm going to delete it now. I agree that it works in the film, but neither the first nor the last time Sammy runs off really add to the plot, like you said. Quick note: If you have CropTool (which doesn't work on the computer I'm on), would you be willing to crop the photo of Cretton down a bit? The image right now is massive, and I think a good trim would do well for it. Also, I'd suggest shrinking the images of both him and Larson down by just a bit, as both take up a lot of space at the moment. However, that's not going to stop me from passing an excellent article. Great work as always! Corvoe ^{(be heard)} 14:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Corvoe: or rather @Sock: Thanks again! I'll try to fix up those images now. 97198 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]