Talk:Dark City (1998 film)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 12:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

I'll be reviewing this article today and tomorrow. I'm kind of nit-picky, so be patient. My comments will be in the table below.

It should be noted that the editor who put this article up for a second Good Article nomination has made very minimal changes from the revision that Viriditas reviewed a few months ago. Also, see User:Erik/Dark City, where there are numerous references about the film that have yet to be used in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Once I opened the review, the first thing I did was look at the contributor history, and I made the same observation. A quick skim of the article makes me think it will not pass GA review as it currently stands. Do you think the article will be significantly expanded soon? If so, then this GA nomination is premature, and should be requested again in the future. AstroCog (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will be expanded soon; the person who put the article up has not edited since August 10. I have no immediate plans to work on the article; it's one of these perpetual projects that I hope to get to later on. I hope you can find another film article to review, I know that there are some that have been listed for a while. This one shouldn't have been on the list. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Review cancelled and GAN failed

Given the comment above by Erik, it is my opinion that this article needs significant work before being re-nominated. It currently does not meet the GA standards, and should not have been nominated. However, this article should be expanded and re-nominated in the future. I may even help, because this is a favorite film of mine.

I would have done any changes you'd wanted me to do if you'd held it and reviewed it. I'm that editor under a new account and yes I've only made a few changes here and there, but I expected the bulk of my work on this article to come once it was reviewed. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I suggest you request a Wikipedia:Peer_review. Nominating an article for GA status means that you think the article currently meets the GA criteria. If you expect to fix up the article later, then don't nominate it.AstroCog (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea about the peer review, but out of around 20+ reviews that I've done to GAs only 1 of the articles met all criteria upon review. You don't nominate because it already meets, you nominate because it has the potential to, with a little work, at least that's what it seems to me. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A little work, yes, but this particular article needs significant expansion and editing. There are so few editors doing GA reviews that everyone would do us a favor by only nominating articles that are very close or clearly meeting the GA criteria. Everything else goes to copyediting or peer reviewers.AstroCog (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that this article isn't close to GA? In which areas do you consider it to completely fail? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Have all of the issues I described above in the original review been addressed? Glancing at the current article I see lots of problems. Why, for example, are there seven separate citations for the claim that that the style of the film is compared to Gilliam? This is usually the vestige of a past edit war. One would expect this kind of thing to be cleaned up by the time we get to GAR. Pick the very best, most reliable source, and cite it, and if necessary, use the footnote to point to other relevant sources. There is just no need for seven separate citations, and that interferes with the reading of the text. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)