Talk:Trump: The Kremlin Candidate?/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to give this one a review, should get round to it pretty promptly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some things I have found:

Using both the Presenter and Narrator parametres in the infobox for the same person seems unnecessary. I feel like Presenter covers both.
I think the line introducing Sweeney in the lead and the second line about his prior experience in that same paragraph could probably be combined.
It feels weird to talk about the release before you have even mentioned the directors.
The last paragraph of the lead has a lot of citations, which should be removed. If any of it is not already sourced in the body of the article then it should be if it is going to be mentioned in the lead.
"Investigative journalists John Sweeney"
I think the content summary could do with a bit of a c/e. It reads like a whole lot of separate sentences that could do with a bit more flow between them. Also, you jump around tenses a bit. Since the events depicted in the documentary actually happened, I think they should be discussed in past tense.
You don't need to remind us that Sweeney is an investigative journalist every time you use his name.
It doesn't seem like there is a whole lot of production information in the production section—you just talk about pre-production stuff, a brief summary of the production, and then talk about one specific interview. Is there nothing else to bulk up the section?
You bring up Andrei Soldatov as part of the film's release, but don't explain why that is relevant.
A lot of the quotes as part of the reception section are just summaries of the film, which we already know. Are there better quotes about what the reviewers/responders actually thought about the film itself?
"Russia reaction" sounds like part of the film's reception, so perhaps a sub-section of that?

The production section is the big concern here. At the moment, it makes the article seem a bit weak to be GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close

Unfortunately, the nominator has been unable to participate in this review, and a note at the article's talk page has not garnered any more intention. The article does not meet the GA standards, in my opinion, so I am going to have to fail the article. The issues that I had with the article are still listed above, so if someone wants to work through those at some point and renominate the article, I'm sure it will make it through. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]