Talk:Grindhouse (film)/GA1

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

As part of WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, I am re-reviewing this article to ensure compliance with current good article criteria. I have determined that it doesn't meet criteria for the reasons outlined below and needs a bit of work if it is to retain its status.
 * Lead: Overall a decent length, if a bit long, mostly because the film's rating is given a whole paragraph--it's undue weight compared to what is in the article, especially since there's content in the lead that isn't in the article body (WP:LEAD).
 * Removed the paragraph to the editing subsection of production. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Article has an excessively long table of contents that inhibit navigation rather than helping. Considering most of the movie/features/trailers have their own articles, that means that each part can be cut down significantly. For instance, the "Plot synopsis" headings from "#Planet Terror" and "#Death Proof" headings can be removed. The "#Fake Trailers" subheadings can simply be folded up; at the very least, all the cast lists are not necessary. (WP:LAYOUT)
 * I've kept in the premises, but I cut down on the headings and reduced the cast lists. I believe it's more manageable now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Along those lines, it would probably be best to move the "#Production" section after the plot synopses.
 * There are many unreferenced statements throughout the article. Remember that the end of every paragraph should at least have one citation to indicate to readers where that content is coming from.
 * I didn't really see any unreferenced statements. The casting and cinematography paragraphs that don't have sources at the end are due to the fact that readers can go to the individual films to see the cast details. If you notice any particular statements, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also lots of one-or-two line "paragraphs" which are not really fully fleshed out; these either need to be cut, expanded or merged.
 * I've merged/expanded a couple, but didn't seen too many. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a fairly recent film; there's a lot more that could be said in the "#Critical Reception" section.
 * I added additional details about the fake trailers section along with including the Metacritic rating. I think it's sufficient for GA, but it should be expanded before going to FAC. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold for seven days, longer if there are significant improvements made. Please appraise me of any developments and progress here or on my talk page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that looks much better. I see your point about the other article references. Thanks for jumping on this so quickly. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)