Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review this within a few days

(talk page stalker) I say please discontinue the review or put it on hold, as the film is still running in theatres, according to Box Office Mojo. And only when it stops running, the box office collections will be stable. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Updating box office numbers is not a criteria that would fail the page based on WP:GACR #5. Review if free to commence as intended by SNUGGUMS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Favre, but I share Kailash's concerns, and had made up my mind even before seeing either of your comments. As of right now, here is how this article compares against the GA criteria:

• Is it well-written?: Mostly. I've got nitpicks, though; for filming, it would be better to say concluding than "wrapping". There are also uses of quotations which do not comply with MOS:QUOTEMARKS- ′ should be ', ″ should be ". Also, "The review aggregator website" in "The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes" isn't really needed. The plot is a bit too long right now at 728 words, should ideally be between 400 and 700 words.

• Is it verifiable?: Every statement has a citation, but there are unreliable/questionable/discouraged sources within the article; "Superhero Hype!", YouTube, Instagram, "IAmRogue", Twitter, "Badass Digest", "Bleeding Cool", "DisneyParks blog" (Disney affiliation not withstanding), "Stitch Kingdom" (Disney affiliation not withstanding), "Filmonic", Entertainmentwise, "Comicbook.com", "Firstshowing.net", "CraveOnline", New York Post, and "Fxguide"

• Is it broad in coverage?: Not yet. As the film is still playing and has not yet been released, revenue has not been fully established and home media sales won't be known until it has been released on DVD, digital download, and Blu-ray. This also could potentially win more accolades and nominations after it stops playing in theaters.

• Is it neutral?: Yes

• Is it stable?: No. This is the biggest issue. The film is still playing in theaters, and details like revenue and accolades are likely to change. On another note, a content dispute over inclusion of leaked footage has also begun since I took the review up. However, this still would've been unstable right now even without the edit warring. Unstable articles are an automatic fail.

• Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?: Yes

This article definitely has potential, but was nominated too early for GA. Wait until this article is settles down with more complete details before renominating. I would wait at minimum 3 or 4 months, but 6 or 7 months would probably be safer. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)