Talk:The Dark Knight/GA1

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing is excellent, especially the plot, which is gripping. There is a one-sentence paragraph that could be merged with the shorter paragraph above it in the Critical reception subsection, and a two-sentence paragraph in the Design subsection that could also be merged into another paragraph.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources throughout. The plot conforms to WP:FILMPLOT. I gather that there is a bit of that going on as well in the Cast and characters for the characters played by Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy and Colin McFarlane - might want to make that a bit clearer by adding citations, as all the other actors/characters in that subsection have cites.

3. Broad in coverage?: Most certainly. There are a few short subsections, namely Video game, and DVD release, that I would imagine will be expanded upon as more material becomes available about them in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. The subsection Anti-piracy measures is a bit short, however, and could perhaps be merged somewhere else in the article - though this is not a big sticking point and if someone wants to defend it staying there I'd be glad to hear it.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is written from a neutral perspective. I especially appreciated that even though the film received a high proportion of positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, some critical/negative feedback is included in the Critical reception section.

5. Article stability? An inspection of the article's edit history shows a relatively higher frequency of edits than for other articles, but this is most likely because the film was popular. I trust that the significant contributors to the article have got a handle on things. In addition, a perusal of the talk page and recent talk page archives shows good talk page discussion with new users, which I was pleased to see. I would like to hear from any of the significant contributors to the article just an affirmation if there are/are not any ongoing issues that need to be resolved, though I was not able to spot any.

6. Images?: 6 images are used in this article. 2 are from Wikimedia Commons, and 4 are fair-use. All the fair-use images have adequate fair-use rationales on their image pages, but for uniformity it would be nice if Image:HeathJoker.png, Image:The Dark Knight (2008 film).jpg, and Image:Norulessensible.jpg, could be modeled after Image:Jokerbehingdthaglass.jpg - it makes it much easier to check that the appropriate fair-use rationale is given and all the boxes are checked, as it were. Generally I think 3-4 fair-use images in a film/popular culture article is plenty so 4 is a tad on the high side, but in this case they are all certainly used appropriately within the article text.

Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/to do -- This did not really fit up there with the other comments - but what is up with this long To do list? I see from its edit history that it has been edited mainly by IPs for the last month. Does this correlate to the actual work going on with the article itself, or can this To do list be trimmed/removed dealt with somehow? Otherwise it is indeed quite confusing to see things that are listed as needing to be done, in the face of a GA Review (however I doubt that is actually the case here).

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please take another look. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reevaluation

Per request from Gary King (talk · contribs), after taking another look some work has been done, but there are still a few easy fixes and things from above that have yet to be addressed. Certainly not failing this because the article is indeed of a high quality, but the above points should still be addressed. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

1. It appears the only thing left from above here is the 2-sentence paragraph in the Design section, try to figure out if this could be merged somewhere else or perhaps even expanded upon a bit more. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Done. - Nice work - passes here. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Done. - passes here. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Done. - passes here. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
5. There is still a question from above that I would like addressed with regard to this one. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Regarding reformatting after Image:Jokerbehingdthaglass.jpg - It appears work has begun on Image:The Dark Knight (2008 film).jpg and Image:Norulessensible.jpg - though some fields are missing, namely Portion used and Low resolution?. And if you are going to go ahead and finish reformatting those 2, might as well do Image:HeathJoker.png as well, for uniformity with the rest. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Please address my comment above regarding the confusing list at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)/to do. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the short paragraph in Design for now. It's mostly just the quote and it does not add much. When it can be expanded on then it will be re-added. The article had huge stability problems when the film was first released but it's a lot better now, especially with semi-protection enabled; most of the recent edits are for copyediting. I've missed those two fields for the images and have now filled them out. The image that has not been formatted is unformatted because it is protected, so only administrators can edit it. (Maybe you can edit it once you become an admin? ;)) The 'to do' is indeed mostly from IPs; a big reason being because they can't directly edit the article itself. However, a lot of it is for the future, as in currently there are no reliable sources for most of the items on the list. Gary King (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review passed

GA Review passed - thanks very much to Gary King (talk · contribs) for addressing all my points so quickly. Cirt (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)