Talk:The Room/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Lead doesn't need the citations, anything cited in the lead should be mentioned elsewhere in the article and cited there instead.
   The 'Casting' section has some very short paragraphs, which could combined together.
   "Wiseau is credited as an actor, an executive producer, the writer, the producer, and the director." -> I'd lose the "the"s and just list it as "an actor, an executive producer and the writer, producer and director".
   Both paragraphs in the 'Soundtrack' heading could be combined. You could add a track listing table if you want as well. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Soundtrack has some pointers if you decide to do so.
   The third paragraph of the 'Errors, plot holes and inconsistencies' section (starting with "At the same time") is unsourced. If the citations elsewhere in the section address this paragraph too, add them there as well.
   The 'Other media' section should use lower-level headings instead of bullet points.
   The 'In popular culture' section should use prose instead of bullets, but the content is okay.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Cast section should either contain some information about the casting and the roles themselves (see e this, this or this for examples). Otherwise I'm not sure it's necessary since you already explain who plays who in the plot section and the cast is listed in the infobox. There's stuff in the 'Casting' header that could be duplicated or summarised here; or moved there entirely if you prefer.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   A lot of the references are missing dates, authors and access dates. They're used well but they just need this information added for completeness sake. Might be worth using the citation templates to help you keep a consistent list of things to fill in, but their use isn't necessary. There's also the refs in the lead that should be used in the article itself.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems okay.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article seems neutral. I was looking for the positive reviews that pushed the Rotten Tomatoes rating up to 36% but I'm not convinced they're actually serious.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems to be attracting a fair amount of disruptive editing. I'll keep an eye on it for a while longer to see if this persists, and if it does, it might be worth seeking semi-protection for it. IP vandalism seems to decrease even after a semi-protection has expired, so it shouldn't hurt.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The image is used well and the rationale is solid, though it's using an outdated template. Just replace that with the current one and it should be grand.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There's a fair bit of work to be done here, it seems, but there's a GA-worthy article in there. I'm going to put the article on hold for now. If you find yourself needing help with any aspect of what I've listed above, don't be afraid to ask for help.

I think that the stability of the article can be solved by simply protecting it. This always happens with topics on cult classics. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be busy for the next few days so I'm going to let this hold run on for another full week. The article seems to have calmed down a lot but there's still a good few points to address. It was due to finish tomorrow but I'll let it run on until the following week for that to be seen to since I'll be away. GRAPPLE X 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As much as I would hate to say this, time is something in short supply. While The Room remains a topic that I want to get to GA status, I am afraid higher priority issues must come first. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable. I'll still let this run out until the end of the week just in case you do find some time, or another editor takes it on. GRAPPLE X 12:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the additional week over, and unfortunately time seems to have been hard to come by. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this one for now, but if you drop me a message in the future I'll review any future nominations promptly. GRAPPLE X 01:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)