Talk:Friends with Benefits (film)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have gone through the article in full, and have decided to give this review.

I can't find any sort of technical problems regarding grammar, reliability and the like. However, the biggest shortcoming of this article is that it is small. Too small. Comparing it with other Good Article sin films such as Scream or Avatar, the article length is grossly insufficient. In addition, the article fails "Broad in it's coverage", primarily due to it's length. I do agree that Friends with Benefits is nowhere as famous a film as the aforementioned films, but it still isn't up to Good Article standards. While the most important sections are present, many sections such as "Filming", "Post-production", "controversies" (secondary requirement) and several others are missing. And these sections are a must for any Good Article.

I am sorry to say, but I suggest a "Fail" for this article on the grounds that it isn't broad in coverage and lacks several key points required in a film Good Article. It's definitely headed in the right direction, but requires a lot of work. And a lot of content. As guidance, you can see the articles of the films I mentioned (which I think you may have already).

 Ankit Bhatt  Talk to me!! LifEnjoy 16:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-review

 * Hey Ankit, I just came across the review. I dofeel that the article has a broad coverage. It's not compulsory that the article must be large enough. If you will look at Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, guess you can again review this same article. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)