Talk:Tron: Legacy/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Igordebraga (talk · contribs) 20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination edit
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 3, 2012, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Plenty of one line paragraphs and sections. Lead is too short and doesn't sum up the article. Ref style is inconsistent.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Three [citation needed], one [dead link] (and a few other broken links without the template).
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Many of the short sentences and subsections are due to this. Also, lacks section on visual effects, which are the most talked aspect of the film.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Most of the reviews in Reception are positive, skims too quickly into the negative ones - it only warranted 49% and 50% in the review aggregators, where is the criticism?
- 5. Article stability?: Pass
- 6. Images?: Pass, though only the poster has alt text
So, the nomination is premature enough to warrant a quick-fail. Research to fix the insufficient coverage (DVD/Blu-Ray extras, interviews, reports, news articles... just make sure the sources are reliable!), clean up the prose and references, and request the related WikiProjects for help, specially after making some improvements.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— igordebraga ≠ 20:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Couldn't you have placed it on hold or found some other glaring problems other than quick-failing it, even though there are spots that it passed? To be frank, that was a waste of a GA nom. RAP (talk) 3:20 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It only passed on being stable and having appropriate images. It was far from GA level, with the writing and coverage as a whole severely lacking. Plus, maintenance templates and being non-neutral are basic things that can warrant a QF. But sorry if I was too rough. igordebraga ≠ 14:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)