Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wanted (2008 film)/1

Wanted (2008 film) edit

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

Result: Kept, as all the concerns were addressed. — Retrohead (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had quite the fall from grace in the last five years. Currently, from what I can tell, it does not possess x qualities of the good article criteria.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

Two MOS:QUOTE violations in the "Reception" section. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Lead does not cover the whole article, and fails to be consistent with other information (Russian-American film, infobox says U.S., UK and Germany produced). Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

Two articles bound for link rot (easy fix) and three dead links (maybe not so easy fix).

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:

Plot is grossly overlong, to the point that there is a maintenance tag. Good articles shouldn't have maintenance tags. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:

Article has had a lot of changes back and forth from one piece of information to another fairly frequently. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

The poster is sufficiently licensed. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Absolutely no body images. Seriously, none. Not good. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The way I see it, this article either needs a serious rehaul to get it up to standard, or it needs to be demoted. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger directed me here since I am still the most prolific contributor despite not editing the article in a major way since 2008. However, I never strove for Good Article status. My observations are as follows:

The "Cast" section could be better structured; maybe merge the "Casting" subsection to it since role preparation is not really part of casting (IMO).
The "Production" section is sloppily written with parts like "Mark Millar became much more enthusiastic about the project" (I really hope I didn't write that originally).
The "Release" section should have the most important information more upfront, such as the actual release date and the box office gross.
The "Reception" section is probably the weakest section in the article. I'd prefer to see the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic language improved, especially to identify how they classified reviews. In addition, there is excessive quoting. There do not seem to be any passages that were paraphrased. Wikipedia should be able to write in its own words and formal tone, especially to get away from the slang that some critics use.
The "Sequel" section is overly detailed and suffers from proseline.

I do not find this to be a Good Article, but I am personally not motivated to clean it up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same boat. I'll try to improve it, but I definitely don't have enough time at the moment to get it back up to GA status. Any other people you think we should ping here? Corvoe (speak to me) 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a poor job reading the guidelines for a reassessment, I apologize. Pinging original nominator Igordebraga, contributing editor Shaunthered, and GA reviewer Hunter Kahn. Corvoe (speak to me) 12:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corvoe, can you notify all the projects tagged on the talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TonyTheTiger. I'm not doing such a great job handling this, the help is much obliged! Corvoe (speak to me) 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name was brought up and I can't get away from the little things the article is lacking on, already started to work in it. igordebraga ≠ 19:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igordebraga, how's work going? Are all the issues addressed and when can I close the reassessment?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. igordebraga ≠ 18:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]