Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brat Pack (film)/1

Brat Pack (film)[edit]

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

Result: No action. The article's review and failure were not handled properly, however, the matter should have been taken up directly with the nominator before bringing it to GAR. Regardless, the article is thought to need some work and no action was taken by the nominator throughout the GAR period. Suggested course of action is to implement the suggestions raised below and open a peer review before the article renominated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This was nominated some time ago, and given a review that had less than helpful comments. Even after requesting additional feedback, and making the few adjustments that were specifically requested, the initial reviewer failed to respond and the article was summarily failed. Upon second nomination, the reviewer did not even bother to go through the steps of creating a review page, but instead failed the article based on its length (which is specifically listed in the notes as not a criteria for a good article), it not having an infobox (again, not listed as a criteria for a good article), and being of "poor quality". I am simply calling for a fair and helpful review of the article. What needs to be done to bring it up to good article status? Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Referencing looks pretty good, aside from the Filmography section which could be improved by having an in-line cite next to each entry, not absolutely necessary though if there is one genera WP:RS reference for this. Just not exactly sure what this article is trying to be, and what other articles could be used for comparison. It seems a little bit skimpy for the scope of topic it is supposed to cover. There is no Reception subsection. The lede seems a bit short, and as opposed to WP:LEAD, the lede seems to introduce new information with its own sources, rather than summarize the article itself. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like you've done a good job figuring out the exact members. However, it lacks broad coverage. I might suggest modeling it after Algonquin Round Table, replacing the Activies and No Siree! sections with one about their films. There are plenty of books covering the subject, so there's no shortage of information out there. For example, the article mentions their partying but doesn't say anything about it. The table is a little confusing, first character names and then the last column with actor names, I prefer how it's done at Frat Pack with "lead", "supporting role", etc., or a simple list like the one at Rat Pack. Also, the article's title, the "(film)" disambiguation is reserved for actual movies. I'd recommend proving it's the primary use and put in a move request, or change it to (actors) or something else instead. Doctor Sunshine talk 14:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article still listed at WP:GAC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review being reassessed is clearly invalid-- not an adequate review, and the nominator doesn't think it's GA as is. According to our procedures, isn't this a case of a non-review and the article should be renominated at GAN (GAC)? It seems to me this isn't the appropriate venue. Diderot's dreams (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats hard to say but I would think sending it back to GAN would be the best option. I do think that the articles second GAN may not have been handled in a proper way, this article needs more work before reaching GA status but I would have reviewed this in a different manner then the 2nd reviewer did. As for the proper outlet to go to from here, I don't know how policy handles a situation like this but if this is not renominated at GAN, perhaps a peer review would not hurt in getting this article to GA status. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the reviewer got in over his head and expressed a desire to back out gracefully. And this community reassessment shouldn't have been opened without the nominator and reviewer discussing the matter first. Unless there's any objection, I think this can be closed. In the meantime, I'll undo the partially undone fail and link the partially done review here. Doctor Sunshine talk 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to close this but I'm going to revise my statement slightly. The review in question may not have been handled very well but we've had two people review it here and no work has been done. I've removed it from GAN as it shouldn't have been listed both here and there. Since the standard outcome of this GAR should be to "list" or "not list" it, and again we've had two people review it here, relisting it ourselves at GAN would be redundant. The article does not meet the GA criteria at this time but, because my previous post confused the matter, I'm going to give this another day or two and then close this, unless some work is done. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]