Talk:Nefarious: Merchant of Souls/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion 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 April 28, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Quite well written throughout, only a few suggestions on this one:

American - word should be wikilinked in the lede.
Documentary film - first instance of phrase should be wikilinked in the lede.
Synopsis - sect title like this is more for fiction. Perhaps try "Contents" as sect title, instead?
Interviews - this sect should really be a sub sect of the "Production" sect, as that's what it is part of.
Production - can this be broken up into sub sub sects, and then expand it a bit more? Something like Writing, Inspiration, Filming, Finance, stuff like that? Not necessarily in that order.
More suggestions on better structural organization at WP:MOSFILM. Just a few would improve it, not all are necessary.
Release - suggest breaking up into 2 sub sects under this, for "Screenings" and "Home media", or something like that.
Analysis = this is good. I really like this sect a lot.
Reception = any chance "Critical response" can be expanded with a bit more secondary sources?
Accolades = could this be presented in a tabular format, instead?
Missing = any chance there could be added a See also sect with some relevant links, 4 or 5 or so, and portals? And also, a Further reading sect with some suggested further reading for readers and editors that might be interested to learn more about the topics?

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Some issues about thoroughness and structure, see above recommendations.

4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone usage, no issues here.

5. Article stability? Upon inspection of article edit history and talk page history, article is stable going back a period of over 2 months.

6. Images?: Maybe you could expand the fair use rationale for the image page, drawing on some ideas from File:Batman Begins Poster.jpg?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the first instances of "American" and "documentary film", switched the "Synopsis" header to "Contents", made the "Interviews" section a subsection of the "Production" section, broken up the "Release" section into two subsections, added another source to the "Critical response" section, converted the "Accolades" section to a tabular format, added a "See also" section with relevant links and portals, added a "Further reading" section with suggested further reading, and expanded the image fair use rationale by drawing on the Batman Begins poster as an example. I would like to expand the "Production" and "Critical response" sections as you recommend, but I have not been successful in tracking down additional sources with which to supply the additional information. I have requested a copy of the film from my local library in hopes that there is bonus material that will provide more information on production. I was unsure as to what organization tips I should implement from WP:MOSFILM. Are there any in particular that you'd recommend? Neelix (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review passed

Looks a bit better, thanks very much for the responsiveness to the above recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]