Talk:Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Dom497 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Everything has reliable references.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Everything has reliable references.
- C. No original research:
- Everything has a reference and no original research was found.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- The article covered / included all the major aspects of the movie.
- B. Focused:
- Everything stays on topic.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Did not find any bias info.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- From what it looks like, within the past week a lot of "undoing" has been going on. Doesn't look like the article is stable any more.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- All images properly tagged.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Images are related to the movie and the captions "agree" with the images they support.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- As of the time I reviewed this article, there has been a lot of "undoing" info on the article. This means that the article is stable enough for GA status. Although the original nominator is now retired, I will put this article on hold for 7 days to see if the article stabilizes. After 7 days, if the article is stabilized, I will pass it. If the article is still unstable after 7 days, I will fail it.
- Pass or Fail:
- After 7 days, the article is still not stable.--Dom497 (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
editNot to mention, that this is definitely NOT a good article, as there are inconsistencies with references, the stablity (as mentioned above), the cast section requires more information, should look like this: Iron Man cast section or this Transformers: Dark of the Moon cast section. Until then, I second the your "overall" result. Fanaction2031 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: (to Dom497) stability is based on whether or not edit wars (content disputes) are prominent in the article, and currently the malicious editing appears to have subsided. (to Fanaction2031): Reference formatting is not a requirement of good articles and reliability is pretty decent, unless you want to point out any references that aren't up to scratch in that area? Also, plenty of film GAs have cast sections that look like this one. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I was just pointing out that the cast section SHOULD be reworked for consistency of the following and past films. Also, it would be more relevant and yes neat. Fanaction2031 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: (to Dom497) stability is based on whether or not edit wars (content disputes) are prominent in the article, and currently the malicious editing appears to have subsided. (to Fanaction2031): Reference formatting is not a requirement of good articles and reliability is pretty decent, unless you want to point out any references that aren't up to scratch in that area? Also, plenty of film GAs have cast sections that look like this one. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Um, 2a is not that good - the ammount of fansite refs is unhealthy (I'm working on replacing them), so the sources aren't all reliable! igordebraga ≠ 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)