Talk:Moscow Strikes Back/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 22:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review, seems like an interesting film! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: There's some work to be done, and I'll continue the review once the points are addressed. Happy to discuss if you disagree with any. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll get to this in the next few days. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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.	Prose is good and free of typos.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MOS standards; plot is under 700 words.
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.	Citations are placed in a proper "References" section.
	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).	I question the reliability of some sources. popsike is definitely not reliable for listing a person associated with the English film. Ref 6 is just... another Wikipedia article? Not reliable, and it's a WP:BAREURLS. Some revision is needed here. Removed the popsike source; the NYT gives the same data. Replaced the Russian ref also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Sources are reliable and cited in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is well-cited, no OR visible
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The "Reception" section is almost entirely quotes from one NYT article, causing Earwig to register a nearly 75% violation. Are all these quotes really necessary? Some, if not most, should be paraphrased. Paraphrased most of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Earwig shows no violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm concerned about the lack of a "Production" section, which is an important part of film articles (see MOS:FILMPRODUCTION). There's certainly information about production; looking at one of your sources, the AFI catalog listing, there's plenty of info there, and they even have a list of citations from which they got the info. A "Release" section may also be appropriate, to describe how it was distributed in the USSR and elsewhere. Added a production section, covering both Russian and Foreign versions, and giving brief details of releases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Article covers the main aspects of the film.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias visible.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring.
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.	The images in the "Plot" gallery and the one in the infobox are improperly tagged with CC public domain- they should use the same tag as the documentary itself, PD-Russia-1996. Done all of them (including those not used in the article). Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Media are properly PD and CC tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I struggle to see the point of the gallery under "Plot" if the film itself is right there. Other old film GAs (e.g. A Dog's Love) just have the film in the plot section, as that's all that's necessary if a reader wants to see parts of the film. That assumes people have the time and the network bandwidth to watch a film in order to understand an article. But this is an encyclopedia, and articles should stand alone without requiring people to browse through or watch other media. The small gallery in "Plot" gives a quick, compact visual impression of the look of the film, and a glimpse of its content. I'd say that was entirely encyclopedic here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Fair enough- media are relevant and properly captioned.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.