GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- The lead does not fully summarize the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD
- The film compares the aspects of filmmaking and voyeurism. Which aspects?
- explaining what the film was originally conceived to be. Extremely poor prose.
- S&Man exposes the voyeuristic nature of faux snuff films and the desensitizing of modern society. needs in text attribution, sounds like a quote, otherwise it is POV
- S&Man is mainly focused around Eric Rost "focused around"?
- The film has a fictional subplot where Erik Marcisak acts as if he is Eric Rost in a role that tries to raise the question on whether or not Eric Rost's films are really snuff films. confusing and unclear.
- Finding a camera taping his neighbor's house for hours fascinated him so much that he thought that he should direct a film about it. sentence changes subject halfway through.
- OK, please take this away get it copy-edited by someone who can write good plain English. I am quick-failing this now on the shoddy prose. When you have had it copy-edit, please read and apply the good article criteria, then take it to peer review before renominating.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- You might like to investigate some more reliable sources. Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, Dreadzone are hardly high-quality.
- Just a note that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are both listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential resources as "sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus" (emphasis in original). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- You might like to investigate some more reliable sources. Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, Dreadzone are hardly high-quality.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Quick-fail on the extremely shoddy prose. I am sorry that you have had to wait so long and then get a quick-fail, but you could have avoided this by checking yourself that the article met the good article criteria before you nominated it. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I wanted to clarify that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are WP:RS and have been used in numerous GA film articles, especially Fangoria. —Mike Allen 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dread Central has helped save articles in AfD. I tried fixing everything that was mentioned and renominated it. Hopefully I actually get a chance to fix things if there are anymore problems. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)