Talk:Warcraft (film)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: P,TO 19104 (talk · contribs) 20:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of citations. Article is very pleasing passes all the following catergories

Well written: yes -- presents lots of comparisons

Verifiable with no original research: yes -- lots of citations

Broad in its coverage: yes

Neutral: yes -- seems so Stable: yes Illustrated: yes

Problematic review

This review was conducted by a new Wikipedian, taking about 20 minutes and clearly not following nor understanding the specific GA criteria. In a quick glance-through, I found grammatical issues, some places where concision and reorganization would help, and while I haven't checked the individual citations, it's clear that the reviewer did not either (nor did they check for close paraphrasing or copyvio), or the review would have taken far longer to do. It's clear that "no original research" isn't understood, either, if "lots of citations" is considered to be proof against it. I have removed the incorrectly placed templates on this page, and the nomination remains open. It is clear that a new reviewer will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts and BlueMoonset: Hi guys, dropping by to give a second opinion on this article. I agree that the initial review is problematic, and the previous review for this article also doesn't seem that helpful. In my opinion, there is quite a bit of work needed to be done here to get this article up to scratch. As far as production information goes I frankly don't feel that there is broad enough coverage to pass a GA review. Especially for a film as big as this where there is surely far more information out there about how it was made. The box office section seems like overkill, and the critical response section is really just the bare minimum. The cast list could probably do with a re-write, it looks like it has been copied from a press release. My suggestion would be to fail this review, give Rusted a good amount of time to research and expand the article, then request a full copy edit before nominating the article for GA review again, but I won't make any decisions about the review until you guys have responded since I'm not the actual reviewer. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. At a first reading, lots of flags show: the lead jumps right into detail about the game scenario as if the reader knows this; the plot section is on the long side; the filming section is short enough and the music section seemingly unnecessary enough that the latter can be removed and the production section rid of sub-headings; the box office section is the longest part of the page, 6 paragraphs longer than the release section... that's not good... the box office section should never be that long normally, let alone in an article that skimps on details everywhere else; why talk about a sequel that is not happening? These things at least would be nice to fix before a GA nom, and should certainly be brought up during. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little is done since the last time anyone commented here. I wonder what's next... I~~^,,_.~~iasO 05:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping nominator Rusted AutoParts, he's probably willing to work on the article. Kingsif (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the feeling is there's still much to be done before a GA, then I'd say go ahead and fail. Rusted AutoParts 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: I'll leave it to you. Kingsif (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I have failed

the review per consensus here. There are comments above as to what needs to be improved before the article should be nominated again. Good luck! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]