Talk:The Deal (2003 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

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 October 29, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Minor structural issues in the Cast subsection. Why are the first two entries in paragraph format, and the rest in bullet format? IMO the whole subsection should be uniformly in the bullet format. Also, if you are going to cite the other entries, best to have a cite for them all.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. Passes here.

3. Broad in coverage?: The plot section is quite short - especially in comparison to the other subsections of the article. I was expecting to see a bit more detail about the film, perhaps about triple the current size, at the least.

4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in a neutral tone. Passes here.

5. Article stability? There appears to be some minor conflict in recent edit history with some IPs - has this been addressed/no longer an issue? Nothing to speak of upon inspection of the talk page.

6. Images?: 2 images used. Image:The Deal poster.jpg - this one has a good fair use rationale, but could use standardization/formatting, with {{Non-free use rationale}}. This image Image:Stephen Frears 2006.jpg is on Wikimedia Commons, and checks out. Passes 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) 05:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reponses

• "Also, if you are going to cite the other entries, best to have a cite for them all."

Do you mean the IMDb citation next to Matt Blair? If so, I just added that because he doesn't have a Wiki article, and readers might like to have more information about who he is and what else he's been in. The cast itself can be cited to the credits of the film, as per the norm.

• "There appears to be some minor conflict in recent edit history with some IPs - has this been addressed/no longer an issue?"

There was an issue a couple of months ago over whether the subject should be referred to as a "TV play" or "TV film". The later was settled upon to keep it uniform to similar articles. There have also been a couple of reverts over whether Blair should be referred to as "a Scottish MP", though that has now been taken care of.

• "The plot section is quite short - especially in comparison to the other subsections of the article. I was expecting to see a bit more detail about the film, perhaps about triple the current size, at the least."

The plot section pretty much summarises the film. Three-fold expansion would result in padding and adding extraneous detail. Is there anything specific that needs clarifying?

Other issues taken care of. Thanks for reviewing. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• IMDB is not a suitable source, so those cites should be removed.
• If the conflict has been resolved, and it does appear to not be very recent, then that's okay.
• If you look at the plot sections of other WP:GA and WP:FA articles on films, you will see a discrepancy in length with the standard, and this article. Perhaps a threefold expansion is a bit much to ask for, but certainly that subsection could be larger, even double the length. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and expanded the plot. I'm not entirely pleased with the length but I suppose it's something that can be dealt with by future copyedits. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review passed

Thank you for addressing my above points. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)