Talk:On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

What is a good article?[edit]

Well-written:
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]
Verifiable with no original research:
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;^[2]

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.
Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.^[4]
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:^[5]
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
^ ^a ^b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments[edit]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article is stable

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 23:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial inspection. The article seems to be of a decent length. There are a good number of cites, though perhaps relatively few for the length of the article, and the sources mainly appear to be from dvd audio commentaries rather than independent reliable sources. Cast is simply a list, which is against general and film guidelines. See Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Cast_and_crew_information. There's a clean-up tag dated July 2007. The Plot section seems over long. I've just checked and it is nearly 900 words. The WP:FILMPLOT guideline suggests 700 as an upper limit. At first glance, the information looks rather thin and lacks authority, and the prose is rather flat. The article has been around since 2006, and has had a good number of editors. There appears not to be any particular editor(s) who has/have put their stamp on the article, though User:El Greco, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Ultraviolet scissor flame are the main contributors, and have worked on the article since 2007, with some fairly recent edits. There doesn't appear to be any edit wars. At first glance this appears to be an article that will require a firm hand to match GA status. SilkTork *^YES! 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns arising.

Lead section doesn't match main body. There is information in the lead not in the body and vice versa.
Plot needs editing and trimming.
Cast section needs writing up in prose.
There are gaps in providing reliable sources.
Prose needs attention throughout the article. It is patchy. There are single sentence paragraphs.
Images are tagged, but quality of File:PizGloria-Schilthorn.jpg is poor.
There isn't an editor or group of editors who appears to be taking responsibility for this article.

Addressing issues.

Read Wikipedia:Lead section and rewrite lead.
Read WP:FILMPLOT and trim plot.
Read Wikipedia:Embedded list and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Cast_and_crew_information and write Cast section in prose.
Provide reliable cites for all information in the article.
Read Wikipedia:How to copy-edit
Improve or replace File:PizGloria-Schilthorn.jpg
Have someone take responsibility for addressing the issues.

Conclusion.

The article fails the GA criteria on a number of issues. The issues above need to be dealt with before the article can be resubmitted. SilkTork *^YES! 23:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.

[Harvard_and_cite.php-2] In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]