Talk:Threads (1984 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 23:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This film used to give me nightmares. I should complete this review within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• Northern England needs to be capitalised in the lead
• "as an international crisis between the United States and the Soviet Union erupts and escalates" - would a crisis between the US and Soviet Union be considered 'international'?
• Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are usually discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to lose the final two citations at the end of the lead?
• The entire Storyline section has one source, even though Plot sections do not require sources, the Background on the war is a large enough section to require at least one
• "Young Sheffield residents Ruth Beckett (Karen Meagher) and Jimmy Kemp (Reece Dinsdale) decide to marry due to an unplanned pregnancy" - very short sentence, would work better if it was merged into the paragraph below
• Cast section is very long and probably dispraportionate in comparison to the rest of the article. I would recommend cutting the list of non-essential characters?
• "due to pressure from the Wilson government" - I think there is a seperate article for the Wilson premiership?
• "(catalogue number BBCV4071)" - doesn't need to be here
• The major concern is the Reception section. Unfortunately it is only two sentences long, and in order to meet the GA criteria the recpetion section must be an in-depth section expanding upon what critics' verdicts were of the film. There should be some reviews for this legendary film, so it shouldn't be too hard to find information on its expansion. In comparison, a look at some other film GAs would give you an idea on what the reception sections look like

References

• No dead links, but I notice for an article this size and importance of a BAFTA winning film that there are a shortage of references themselves

On hold

This is mostly a well written and comprehensive article, but the reception section would be a fail to most other reviews. I'm willing to give this a second chance and put this on hold for at least the standard seven days for its expansion. At the moment it does not pass the broadness part of the criteria. I would strongly recommend finding some sources/reviews before expanding it to at least two paragraphs. Please let me know if you have any questions, good luck ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to it tomorrow. Cheers! Mariomassone (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mariomassone: hey, are you still planning on finishing? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say I can't commit to a major editing in my current circumstances. All I can really do is ask if we really need the source in the "plot" section and simply merge reception with the broadcast history. Mariomassone (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's OK as I have been less active lately too! The plot sources should be fine, but the only concern here is that every film needs a reception section of at least two paragraphs to become a GA. I think there would be a few critic's reviews online but if information is scarce on the reception then I suppose the last resort would be to merge it with broadcast history and expand it as much as possible, at least ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Close - not listed

Closing due to inactivity, please let me know when you nominate again. The prose side of things are good but it's this article's lack of primary sources and the short reception section that prevents this from reaching GA. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)