Talk:Smashed (film)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 14, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
Per WP:LEAD, please expand lede intro sect a bunch more, to fully summarize entire article's contents as its own standalone summary. I'd suggest at least three paragraphs of four sentences each.
Plot summary should be summarized a bit more from beginning-to-end in the lede intro sect please.
Recommend adding three or so reviews to the lede, not quotes, but paraphrase the gist of what they said.
For the Critical reception to expand in the lede, suggest the notable critics: Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, and Mick LaSalle.
Per WP:MOSFILM and good model at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, some structural reorganization is needed. Soundtrack should not be at the bottom, not sure where to put it though, but certainly higher up. Accolades -- since there's only six of them -- could be converted to prose form as one paragraph, in its own sect, above Critical response sect.
Writing quality is generally quite good. But in Critical response sect, quotes can be paraphrased a bit more here, instead of quoting "remarkable", for example, could find synonyms, instead.

2. Verifiable?: Very nice job with the citations. There aren't a slew of cites to work through, so I'd strongly suggest archiving all cites with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archivedate fields. I'd recommend adding in-line-citations to back up the factual assertions in the captions of the 2 free-use images.

3. Broad in coverage?: Production sect seems a bit skimpy. Maybe for this particular topic you didn't come across more on that in secondary sources? What about where filming took place?

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written in a neutral and matter of fact tone.

5. Stable? Article is stable going back several months per my inspection of article edit history and article talk page.

6. Images?: Excellent job with the fair-use rationale on image page. 2 free-use images check out okay upon review at Wikimedia Commons.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@97198:Let me know, here, if you've got a status update on this one. If I see some significant positive progress being made with regards to recommendations, above, we can keep the review open a tad bit longer. If some of my own recommendations clash with very good FA model Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan — then no worries, I'll defer to that. :) — Cirt (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt, sorry I haven't got back to you. I'm planning to tackle this now and will get back to you in a few hours at the outside. Is that okay? 97198 (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine, you can have longer than that, but if you're working on it now, that's awesome. — Cirt (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review. I've addressed most of your concerns (I think) except for a couple:

I think the Soundtrack section fits in logically where it is. It's almost an adjunct, a footnote, to the actual film so it should be separate from the other sections that address the film itself. Kind of like how Home media was placed at the end of the example article you linked. (Notice at MOS:FILM a Soundtrack section is listed under "secondary content".)
The Production section is as complete as it can be based on the available sources. Although it isn't as detailed as other film articles which have tons of coverage, I don't think there are any major gaps.
As I mentioned in the last GAN you reviewed for me, I found the Wayback Machine very tedious to work with and it had a very high failure rate. I think it could easily take me a few hours to work through archiving all the URLs and to be honest I'd really rather not try, especially since it's not part of the GA criteria.

Thanks again. 97198 (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Smashed_%28film%29 = at a minimum, all links with a reading of anything other than value "0" or "200" here have to be archived.
Accolades - table is a bit much undue weight for six nominations like that, better converted to paragraph format.
Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Smashed+%28film%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - copyvio unlikely.
Recommend in-line citations to back up claims asserted in image captions.
Have you had a chance to look over suggestion number 3, above, just optional only, as a suggestion, to consider, as a way of paying it forward ?
Nice job with lede intro expansion.
Great job with paraphrasing and copyediting.

Let me know responses to points raised, above. — Cirt (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had some trouble with the Wayback Machine again – there were two links showing problems on Checklinks but only one could be archived. Accolades table has been converted to text (sorry, didn't see your note about that before). Cites added for image captions. Thanks again. 97198 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to recommendations by GA Reviewer, above. — Cirt (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt! 97198 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.