Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Review criteria 6

I realize that the criteria of stability is one that is at least partially out of the nominator's control. However, checking edit history reveals that 68 editors have made 114 edits since nomination, beginning two days after your posting the nomination. Of course, you can't help that. However, a pattern of ongoing edits was still occurring when you nominated the article. Besides the 11 edits on the nomination date (8 by you, 3 by another editor), there were 26 edits by 18 editors in the month before the nomination date. I am leaning towards an immediate failure of the nomination on grounds of instability. However, the article shows so much work, so much promise, I thought you should be offered a chance to speak to the subject. I am placing this nomination on hold pending a failure for lack of stability.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions states, "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." And there has been commentary in the past about changing that wording so that it's stronger in stating that those who have not significantly contributed to the article should not nominate it. I'm stating this because I'm not sure that Rusted AutoParts, who already has Mad Max: Fury Road listed on his user page as a good article, qualifies as a significant contributor to the article. His edits to the article can be seen here. BlueMoonset, as you are someone who persistently cautions those who are not significant contributors to articles against nominating them for GA, any thoughts on that?

And all that stated, Rusted AutoParts may be willing to address your concerns via editing, Georgejdorner. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, we can't do anything about the stability concern. But improving the article via editing can obviously be done. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I am willing and able to put the work in on concerns raised in order to get the page up to GA standard. @Flyer22 Frozen: a small clarification I wish to make is that the film articles listed on my user page are “Good Article Projects”, articles that I have nominated for GA or plan to work on to nominate. Rusted AutoParts 21:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think the stability criteria is quite fair because no one can control the number of edits made on an article, nor the time span for them. But it is the criteria, vague as it is. I never got past this, never thought to check if Rusty was a contributor. If Rusty has an explanation for the ongoing edits, the apparent instability, then I think he should be afforded the opportunity to express it.

Update: Rusty is a late contributor, but he is a contributor. Just checked Edit history.Georgejdorner (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts, thanks for clarifying. Good luck.

Georgejdorner, yes, Rusted AutoParts is a contributor. That is clear from the link I pointed to above. But Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions wants the editor to be a significant contributor. That's what I meant. It's similar to what Wikipedia:Featured article candidates states about significant contributors, but the FA piece currently has stronger wording on that front. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Significant" is ambiguous and open to interpretation. To me, an edit change of 25,696 bytes is significant. Especially because it was on citations, which posits familiarity with the material being cited.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify the citation thing as meaning that one is a significant contributor. And I don't think most would either. That certainly wouldn't pass with regard to a WP:FA nomination. But like BlueMoonset stated below, "At this point, five and a half months on and with a review in progress, I don't see any reason for the review not to continue." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Georgejdorner, to get back to the original invocation of the stability criteria, I don't understand why it's mentioned at all in the context of this review. What matters is the stability of the article at the time of the review, not the edits made in the months since the nomination. In a review that is begun on October 9, edits that occurred in September are not a stability issue because the article has been stable—in this case, virtually untouched—since then. There does appear to have been minor instability in the middle of September, but the most problematic IP editor was subsequently blocked for a week on September 29 and has not returned. Note that regular edits that improve an article shouldn't be considered a source of instability unless they're coming so quickly, or making such significant changes, that a review is difficult to conduct: it's very hard to check an article that keeps getting modified. Sometimes waiting a few days to a week will allow things to calm down and the review to proceed. Of course, if there is edit warring and/or a lot of people involved making changes back and forth, it is not possible to conduct a review, in which case failing due to stability issues is warranted.

Continuing on to the contributor issue raised by Flyer22 Frozen, it looks like Rusted AutoParts made a series of edits on April 20 and 27, the vast majority of which seem to involve archiving a great number of references (note to Georgejdorner: archiving does not require any familiarity with them), but which also included copyediting and adding some new material. I'm not entirely sure where to draw the line between editing and being a significant contributor, though when Rusted AutoParts had made a great deal of GA nominations to articles where they weren't significant contributors two weeks before nominating this article, these were very clear and I reverted them until the proper consultation was made on the article talk pages per the GA instructions. (I believe the bulk of them have subsequently been renominated after consultation.) At this point, five and a half months on and with a review in progress, I don't see any reason for the review not to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoon makes a compelling argument about stability. The purpose of the stability rule becomes clear in that explanation; thank you, BlueMoon. That settles that argument so far as I am concerned. Given that the article is not changing and impeding the review, I drop that objection under Criteria 6.
• As a reviewer, I believe that a nominator should not be denied a nomination if they took the trouble to go completely through an article checking the cites and information. Call it a pre-review, if you will. And there should be no compulsion to add material, just to satisfy the requirement. If there's nothing left to add, well, that's it.
• I will resume the review. I am asking for my full week because I am just beginning.
• My apologies to Rusty for my seeming sloth, but it's been a loooong time since I reviewed an article. I want to get it right.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Review notes

Cite 1 does not name production company. Cite 4 does.
Cite 3 names movie as Australian-American production, not strictly Australian.
Cite 5 confuses the question of the movie's cost instead of clarifying it.
Frankly, I don't understand the need for cites in the info box. Are these items controversial? Or is there some other reason?
Cite 7 in the lead does not back up assertions of box office losses. Is this item controversial enough to merit a cite?
I do not understand Cite 11. What is Metro? A bus?
Cite 19 is given thrice running. Earlier Cites 19 could be deleted as duplicate.
Cite 20 is given for two consecutive sentences. Recommend deleting the first Cite 20.
Source for Cite 31 is a list of video games.
Cite 32 does not give date quoted in text.
Source for Cite 34 says "few weeks before" October; text says October. Shaky.
Cite 35 says photography took six months. Cite 6 says 120 days. You should resolve this contradiction.
Cite 45 is a photo, with no info to corroborate text.
Cite 49 is superfluous; it also doesn't support text. Luckily, deleting it leaves Cite 48.
Cites 46 & 53 do not support the claim of Olympic athletes as stunt people. Cite 46 does mention Olympic riggers.
Two consecutive Cite 55s. First one should go.

Okay, time for a break. More later.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Back:
Source for Cite 63 does not support cuts-per-minute stat.
Source for Cite 64 has anti-browser popup. Cannot confirm all facts claimed.
Cite 67 is a security risk.
Cite 69 source does not mention test screenings.

Review notes 2

Couldn't find reference to 'four weeks' in video source for Cite 74, but may have missed it. How about a time hack leading to it? That may be helpful to readers as well.
Source for Cite 78 does not mention feral wandering.
Source for Cite 79 does not mention theme of staying alive. And why not link to the original magazine article?
Quotation not found in either Cite 82 or Cite 83.
Cite 84: quote not found.
Cite 89 contains pricing for comic books. Commercial site? Luckily, Cite 88 has the info and 89 may be eliminated.
Source for Cite 94 does not mention the IMAX showings in question.
See WP:OVERKILL for that clump of six citations in the Prequel comics section. They need to be trimmed. I can already verify the text without using any of the cites, so why six?
Cite 101 links to a commercial source.
Cite 110 links to a paywalled article. Proof is hidden.
Movie's release not in source for Cite 111.
Loss figure not in source for Cite 7b.
Cite 115: While Forbes gives various figures for movie performance, it does not mention the amount given in text. I can see how, with a bit of OR, $400 million could be derived, but then, that's verboten. Recommend rewriting text to source material and thus rescuing the source.
Delete the first of the pair of Cite 116s.
Cite 122 link returns 503 Error. The accompanying Cite 4 does not prove the text.
Source for Cite 123 contradicts text.
Source for Cite 124 is identical to 123, and is used confusingly. Please clarify.
Cite 128 is unneeded; Cite 127 makes the point.
Cite 132: Quotes not found in source.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Review notes 3

Cites 146/147/148: None link to the Ebert.com website referred to in article.
Skipped Cites 153 to 163 as much much more of the accolades overkill. After the first dozen or so cites acclaiming it, I burned out. If these cites are still here for the next reviewer, let her/him check them out.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Source for Cite 165 does not mention new script entitled 'Furiosa;.
Source for Cite 166 does not mention date.
Date for interview in source for Cite 171 is derived from source's dateline. Is this kosher?
Source for Cite 173 mentions possibility of a 'Furiosa' film with Theron, but does not state Miller desires it.

Decision table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Passable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per WP:TOOBIG, this article should be trimmed considerably. Much of the prose predicts future events, which tone I suspect traces back to use of press releases for sources. Cutting predictions, pruning the article to actual happenings, will cut it a lot. There is all too much financial trivia, when final box office results would suffice. Lastly, other articles could be "calved" from this one. Addendum: Why an overly long Top ten lists section without cites, an Accolades section, and a See also: List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road? Why not delete the Top ten list, or incorporate it into the List of accolades, before making the Accolades section a brief summary with the See also leading to a complete coverage of the praise? And believe me, it does.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Provides a Reference section entirely linked to websites, but has no Bibliography due to lack of hard copy sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	About a third of the Cites require attention.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Questionable.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage okay.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Overly detailed. Which reader is going to be interested in opening night box office receipts in a foreign country, for instance?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fair and balanced presentation.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There are many running changes in Edit history, but none that have made any major changes in the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Done.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suitable. A single illustration for a movie seems skimpy, though.
	7. Overall assessment.	There is a terrific 80,000 byte article straining to emerge from this overblown article. I have never seen so much research into a subject. It seems mad to claim there are too many sources; however, with multiple links to the same source articles because the same source may have been reprinted several times, a reviewer is lost in tall grass. We have a case of too many cooks helpfully ruining the broth. Hopefully, there's a master chef willing to take over.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)