Talk:Kiss the Blood Off My Hands/GA1

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

Reviewer: LM150 (talk · contribs) 16:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I really wanted to enjoy this, but found too many issues to pass this as a GA at this time. Perhaps re-nominate in the future? Summary of the main issues:


 * The Plot section is on the short side. It should be between 400-700 words as per the manual of style
 * "Origin of Norma Productions" - much of this section shouldn't belong here. The focus should be on the film, not the production company. On another note, there's not enough citations here. More inline citations are needed on some paragraphs.
 * "Development and casting" - should be split as two sections as it's currently huge
 * Wikilinks are overused - you should avoid creating a sea of blue. Do we really need all these films and links? Example: McDonald had a noteworthy resume of his own with crime and mystery films, which included Love from a Stranger, Dangerous Intruder, The Body Snatcher (which earned him a Hugo Award nomination), Strangers in the Night, Nightmare, Whispering Ghosts, Rebecca, Blind Alley, The Nursemaid Who Disappeared, Who Killed John Savage?, Bride of Frankenstein, Charlie Chan in Paris, Charlie Chan in London, Mystery Woman, Limehouse Blues, Menace, The Mystery of Mr. X, Hotel Splendide and C.O.D.
 * You have used IMBb as a source 25 times. IMDb is not a reliable source and should not be used.
 * "Critical response" - this section needs to be summarised in prose, and not in bullet points. Bullets should only be used for short sentences. It is currently just a large cut-and-paste of the film critics' reviews. Paraphrase where you can and only use short quotes from their reviews.
 * References could be properly formatted as per guidelines
 * Some paragraphs are missing citations
 * Language all over the article needs to be tighter and more encyclopedic. It reads slightly informal/like an essay assignment at times. Perhaps a copyedit will be useful? Here are some examples of non-encyclopedic tone/language:
 * The press was understandably surprised when Lancaster
 * The production did have some funny moments.. This especially surprised Lancaster
 * Still, Lancaster's back was so blistered
 * The story could have just as easily been chosen by Mark Hellinger Productions.

Here's a reminder of the good article criteria. The main goal is to keep it focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Also try looking at featured articles of films for inspiration!