 | The Norwood Necklace was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 24, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Norwood Necklace/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
One more. I suspect I'll have to put this on hold due to the shortage of sources JAGUAR 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Initial comments edit
- The leads needs to be expanded to summarise the article. Also, there is nothing on what critics thought about it in the lead
- "Violet Grey has suspicions" - just 'Grey', as her full name was already introduced
- "the female detective, Violet Grey, is wired the details of the case" - what does wired mean? Telephone?
- I would recommend splitting plot and production into two sections
- "This film was the third release in the "Violet Grey, Detective" series" - should the name of the series be italicised?
- Can reception be expanded? Are there any more reviews out there?
On hold edit
As it's very understandable that information is scarce for a 104 year old lost film, this article is at 27k (527 words) of readable prose too short to promote. Again, the major concern here is that there are only three references! I can't promote an article with three sources, so addition of more sources would be great. Are there any more secondary sources that were used for previous Thanhouser articles suitable for this one? For an article this size, a bare minimum of five sources would suffice. I'll have to leave this on hold until more content/sources are added. Other than that, I recognise it's a short review. 
JAGUAR 15:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Jaguar: - I can try and dig up some more sources, but Bowers has many references combined as a compendium source which means that it should count. If I were to split them up to the real or archive sources I have, then it would be redundant and difficult to follow for most - as many are still offline. Will try to get more work, they sometimes have additional materials added up which Bowers did not have access to. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar and ChrisGualtieri:GA Hold status for one month — any updates on status here? — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just waiting for Chris to come up with a few more secondary sources - after that it should be good to go. JAGUAR 13:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar and ChrisGualtieri:GA Hold status for one more week since above status check -- any new updates? — Cirt (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not GA at this time edit
Unfortunately, it looks like ChrisGualtieri hasn't edited Wikipedia in about one month.
Closing this one as not GA at this time.
Can always be renominated later and ChrisGualtieri could request Jaguar to do an expedited review at that point in time -- based upon this review. Or ask the same of a different GA Reviewer.
Good luck,