Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut/1

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Not Listed As noted in the recent GA Review, this article originally failed on criteria 3a. The article has improved since the beginning of the GR. There are still a few problems with citation, and the coverage in the article is not broad enough to satisfy 3a. Aaron north (T/C) 17:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a community reassessment for South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. I cannot do this by myself, but I worked on a few sections that needed editing. If anyone else can help me, please do so. Thank you. Railer-man (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional contributor to the article, I'd like to request that you withdraw this, because it's nowhere near GA status. There are still many unsourced statements, and many of the sections need expanding. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, liar. You didn't even look at it. 99.19.95.52 (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at it? I count at least four sections (Production and themes, Musical numbers, Home media distribution and Box office) that don't have a single reference. That's not acceptable in a GA. Other sections (ie. Awards and nominations) have few references. And is that really all that could be put together about the production of the movie? Surely there's enough out there for a decent sized section. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not list: recommend that the points raised in the review be addressed, citations be provided, copy-edit, get a peer review and when all points have been addressed renominate at GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scorpion and Jezhotwells, the GA reviewer was right. The article needs a lot of attention. It doesn't need to be comprehensive for GA, but a film article without a production section, (particularly a recent film with a DVD commentary available) does not meet criterion #3. Two sentences put together from the IMDb crew list is not enough. The prose is not great and would benefit from being copyedited from someone unconnected with the article. One example: "The film ... condemns the practice of censorship, and demonstrating..." (tense doesn't match). There's no hurry to get an article to GA. I suggest trying to find some good sources and spend more time working on it, before taking it to peer review. Talking of sources, I'm sure a film as notorious as this has been mentioned in reliable books and journals.--Beloved Freak 21:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not list: This article clearly fails on criteria 2 with vast sections lacking citations. As noted in the GA review, the article has a coverage problem, so it fails on 3a as well. The GA review was correct, and it is hard to imagine that this can be fixed in this GAR. Aaron north (T/C) 18:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]