Jump to content

Talk:The FP/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I'm going to give this a once over first, as I've just discovered these check lists for GA Review. Then I'll go section and section to offer more specific directions. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Overall good, but with a few areas where there are awkward constructions.
  • Needs one more copy edit pass, particularly check out the MOS on using ellipses in quotations.
  1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead is not a summary of the whole article, e.g. critical response, production. Too much plot summary. The layout is fine. Some folks might be offended at the line regarding fellatio, since it doesn't really add anything to plot discussion. The cast list is fine.
  • Lead much better now (I tweaked it just a bit). Question which bothered me before and I didn't write it down, you mention that it opened to positive reviews. Were they ALL positive. If not, you should change the wording to "mostly positive", it's a bit confusing between "early screenings", "the premiere" and it's release.
  • The way it's worded, I thought, was to illustrate that the early screenings were positive, as it's later clarified that "Upon its theatrical release, the film opened to mixed reviews." Every review I saw from either South by Southwest or Fantastic Fest was positive, so adding "generally" or something would be kind of presumptuous. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • reads better now.
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    the ref section is well laid out with consistent formatting
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    well sourced for the most part, however, most of the sources are close to the project (other than reviews).
  1. C. No original research:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    covers all the major aspects well
    B. Focused:
    article flows nicely and moves from section to section, each of which deals well the particular aspect of the film being covered.
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    didn't really see any indication of bias.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    would be nice if other editors added to the article. definitely no edit wars.
  1. 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; fp shot is free; not sure the fair use rationale for the other pic is a valid one. However, there are very few illustrations in the article overall.
  • This has been a serious obstacle. I've been searching high and low for any fair use images on Flickr and elsewhere, and have come up largely empty-handed. Most images of the filmmakers and premieres have been posted by Drafthouse Films, and they've claimed all rights reserved. Also, why is the screen cap of Sean Whalen questionable fair use? It's used for commentary and discussion on the film. Unless I'm taking that too literally, which there is a very good chance of. Corvoe (speak to me) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added photos of James Remar and Tim League in context. The photo of Remar could move to where Whalen's photo is now, if you find the rationale to be unacceptable. Corvoe (speak to me) 02:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you change the FU rationale on Whalen? I think it works as an example of the costume.
  • Rest of the pictures work.
  1. B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    well captioned
  2. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Don't think it's ready for Good status yet, don't know how to resolve the image issue. But it's not far away.

Onel5969 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed from Onel5969's talk page archive

[edit]
I have revised it once more. I'm not entirely sure where the issue is with the one ellipsis I used. I took out the extra criticism of acting and costumes, just to get to the negative point. Do you think it should be restore? Other than that, I hope it's up to standard! Corvoe (speak to me) 02:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good. My comment about the ellipses, was not that you used them incorrectly, but according to MOS:ELLIPSIS, you didn't use them enough. I don't necessarily agree the MOS, but if that's the standard you might be judged over... I'm going to change one, to show you how I read the MOS. Let me know your thoughts. In the meantime, I'm moving it to GA status.Onel5969 (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_FP/GA1&oldid=1074316824"