Talk:Wisconsin Death Trip (film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wisconsin Death Trip (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 15:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I'll take this. Sorry it has taken you too long for a reviewer.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Wisconsin Death Trip is a 1999 docudrama film written and directed by James Marsh should be "written for the screen" since he's given a "screenplay by" credit
   • to claim land she has allegedly inherited" a land
   • she builds a home, and stages a series of live performances that are compromised by her false teeth. there's no need for that Oxford comma
   • including at an Eau Claire train station "including one at an Eau Claire train station"
   • That long quote in Style section must be rendered a block quote since it's made up of 508 characters
   • Wisconsin Death Trip was largely met with critical praise must be reliably sourced in its relevant section (MOS:FILMCRITICS). While we're at it, critical response could benefit from a major copyedit, as it consists mostly of pull quotes from reviews (a violation of WP:QUOTEFARM) and lacks thematic organization. Please write this section from scratch, organize reviewers' sentiments, and paraphrase whenever you can but be vigilant to avoid any form of original research. It is equally important that the claim in the lede that the movie received praise for its cinematography and criticism for its structure and inclusion of modern-day footage is substantiated here. See WP:RECEPTION for pointers on how you can write this section better.
   • Please make sure both terminal and orthographic punctuations on truncated quotes are placed outside (MOS:LQ)
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   • Cast section must be reliably sourced, per MOS:FILMCAST
   • What makes cite 38 reliable?
   • Another reliable, independent source is needed to support the fact that the movie "was largely met with critical praise". Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes cannot be used because prior to the 2000s, the site didn't exist, and review aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources, such as books and periodicals reporting in retrospect how a film was received by critics.Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Need coverage on the movie's aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic included in critical response, preferably as the last paragraph. Use Template:Rotten Tomatoes and Template:Metacritic film prose.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing on hold as I review the article against the web sources. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

   The article has passed the "verifiable" criterion, so I'm happy to pass this GAN once the remaining issues are fixed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

   Although nominator has fixed some of the issues raised in this GAN, they seem to have abandoned this in favor of pursuing other endeavors. I shall then close this GAN as failed. The article can be renominated at a later period once the remaining issues are fixed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I intended to come back to this over this coming weekend, but will leave it be for now and reassess at a later time. Thank you for your attention to it. --Drown Soda (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)