Talk:Kumbalangi Nights/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ex Parte (talk · contribs) 05:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Opening statement

I've begun the process of conducting this article's GA review and I've made a few initial findings w/r/t the WP:GAFAIL factors:

1. The article is clearly not a long way from meeting any of the six good article criteria. If the article isn't already there (and my full review might very well reveal that it is), it's certainly close.
2. The article does not contain any copyright violations. I've conducted a copyvio check and found nothing warranting further examination.
3. The article is not in need of any cleanup banners.
4. There is not any edit-warring taking place on this article.
5. There has been no prior GA review which presents any issues which have been left unresolved.

Based on these conclusions, this article is entitled to a full review. My initial impression is that this article is likely to be deemed GA quality in its current state. Although this is merely my first take, and while I may find some areas for improvement, I am very impressed with the quality of this article. It seems to provide complete coverage and is also well-sourced. I look forward to conducting the full review soon.

WP:GAFAIL preliminary review: Passes.  Done

Full review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   This article is very well written. Although there may be some slight room for improvement before this article reaches, 'e.g.', WP:FA level, I think what we see right now is absolutely at least at GA level. If you wish to take this article to FA level down the road, one thing to consider would be translating the box-office numbers to USD to make them slightly more meaningful to readers on the English Wikipedia. This is, of course, not necessary and I doubt it'd be a point of significance in FA review; it's merely something to consider.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I see no indication of prohibited original research or any instances of copyvio and plagiarism. All sources are attributed and each citation appears to be to a reliable source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers all aspects of the film that we typically see in articles of this kind, especially at the GA level.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article meets each of the GA criteria in its current state. Accordingly, it passes GA review without the need for any further editing.

Closing statement

I'm very impressed by the quality of this article. Most GA nominees will have at least one area where they require adjustment before they meet the GA criteria. This article appears to be the exception. I am fully satisfied that in its current state this article meets all requirements to pass GA review. Congratulations and keep up the good work!

Ex Parte, thank you for your review and the pass. GinaJay (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)