Talk:Stanley Kubrick/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At 99715 characters of readable prose, this seems to be overly detailed, but I will take a look at this and see what advice I can give. I will take a look at policies and guidelines such as WP:SIZE, WP:SS, WP:CFORK. Of the 16717 WP:GAs as of February 1, 2013 only 5 were this long and less than 1% (164 to be exact) were longer than 61 KB of readable prose according to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. I am very likely to pursue scaling this back to a size that is not in the top 1%. However, I will take a closer look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- As of April 19, 2014, there were 19873 GAs and only 8 of them were this long. Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) are longer than 60KB. Thus, if you wish to proceed with this GA keep in mind that I will hope to do for this what I did for Clint Eastwood, which was guide it from well over 90KB to around 60KB.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to the best of my recollection, the longest WP:GAs I have passed are Chevrolet Volt (currently 85535 characters of readable prose, but 57858 when I passed it), Clint Eastwood (70000/60703) and Missouri River (64685/54953). BTW Eastwood was 93327 when the review began.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By my count the article has 10 {{citation needed}} templates. That is about 1 per 10KB prose, which is very close to quickfail standards for me. However, due to the importance of the topic, I will not QF the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things that I notice is that the Career section is 41336 characters of readable prose. However 14 or 15 of the 18 subsections should all lead with {{main}} tags. I think we should examine the content in this section since anything here should also be included in a dedicated article. Since I want to cut about 40% overall, we should cut this section heavily and probably an above average amount because not all sections will have logical places to send forked content. I understand that since you are use to seeing so much here it may seem odd to do, but let's try to reduce this section by over 50% to under 20KB. It is very easy to do this without WP losing any content because every film has its own article where the removed content can be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:QUOTEFARM - even in the lead. No need for so much copyrighted material as most can be re-written to summarised the copy and pasted quotes. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. -- Moxy (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I am FAILing this. The nominator have been quite active in recent days but has shown not interest in teding to any of these issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]