Talk:Gladiator (2000 film)/GA1

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

This article contains multiple citation needed tags. This means that there is unsourced content whose accuracy is challenged, thus this article fails criterion 2b. I will wait a week before delisting this article if the issues are not addressed. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I added references. Ionutzmovie (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources have been added, I don't seen any other problem with the article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment this still isn't quite up to par on referencing. I see unsourced roles in cast section (yes, they DO need citing; WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide any exemption for that) and ends of paragraphs without citations. Every paragraph should end with at least one in-text citation. If more than one source is needed to support a paragraph's content, use more citations as needed. There are definitely articles in worse shape, but this doesn't meet GA standards yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Resuming reassessment
FutureTrillionaire, there are over a dozen individual GA reassessments that have been open for over a year, of which yours is one. This one needs to be wrapped up in the next few weeks.

I've taken a look at the article, and SNUGGUMS has made a reasonable assessment of some of the current ways in which the article falls short of the GA criteria regarding inline citations. Other issues I've noticed:
 * The article does not meet the manual of style's lead section requirement, particularly that it fails to adequately summarize the contents of the article. There is nothing of the Production, Historical authenticity, or Influences sections in the lead, and there needs to be. Given the size of the article, the lead should be three or four meaty paragraphs (but not more than four).
 * In addition to the many uncited entries in the Cast section noted above, the first and last paragraphs of Fictionalization and the final Anachronism paragraph are completely uncited, as is the third paragraph of Influences and the bulk of that section's first paragraph, and the second paragraph under Home media.
 * There are also sections where the next listed source does not apply to the bulk of the previous text. For example, the beginning of the Music section mentions conductor Gavin Greenaway and the fact that Ofra Haza was supposed to sing but died first, but the FN54 (reel.com) citation mentions none of that; indeed, the statement on Gerrard's vocals being similar was actually someone's opinion in that source, and should not be presented as fact here. The Haza material needs a source.
 * There are occasional places where the prose is unclear. The Accolades section has a particularly confusing sentence about Zimmer and Gerrard and the Academy Awards rules that apparently prevented Gerrard from being included in the nomination; this needs to be revised. I also think it's odd that the initial text in this sentence doesn't name the Oscars won, but does name the nominations that didn't bear fruit. This needs to be restructured somehow.

I'm taking the liberty of pinging Ionutzmovie and Yashthepunisher, who did work last year answering the initial issues raised by this reassessment, in the hopes that they can address these additional issues, and work on any more that may be found as the reassessment continues. (If not, we can apply to the relevant WikiProjects.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there have been no edits that addressed the above issues, I have just posted to the Military History and Film WikiProject talk pages, letting them know about this ongoing reassessment. I plan to allow the standard seven days for these issues to be addressed by either them or any other editor, though if work is in progress, since there is a significant amount to accomplish, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing reassessment
It has been another eight days, and in the interim a few minor cleanup edits were made that did not address any of the issues listed above, and the Plot section was tagged as too long. Under the circumstances, I am closing this reassessment and delisting the article. When the issues have been addressed, I would recommend a Peer review be done to see whether there are any further issues remain, after which the article can be nominated to be relisted as a Good Article. Best of luck going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)