Talk:Meet the Parents/GA1

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

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC) OK, apologies you've had to wait so long for a GA review. I'm pretty sure this will pass, but since you've been waiting for so long, I'll try to give you some useful feedback.
 * technical stuff:
 * Infobox image has a good fair use rationale
 * File:Meet the Parents grace.JPG probably qualifies as fair use but providing a rationale does not, in itself, guarantee this. I think the rationale there needs a little strengthening, especially with regard to WP:NFCC, specifically 1, 3 and 8.
 * All other images are free and appropriately tagged.
 * You have a redirect to a disambiguation page
 * You might want to have a look at your external links but I don;t think there's anything to be concerned about with those.

I'll be back later on, I want to read the whole article before I make any suggestions. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this and no apologies necessary for the delay. I was well informed of the backlog when I nominated the article and I had no expectations of an immediate review. Reading through your initial comments, I wanted to reply to a few points.
 * File:Meet the Parents grace.JPG had an error in its rationale when it came to point #8. As Erik and I discussed before, I've used the example of File:Fight Club bathtub.jpg (which he uploaded) as a guide to gauge the appropriate type of image as well as the fair use rationale. I inadvertently copied point #8 from his image and didn't adjust it to properly reflect on the image I uploaded. It has now been resolved and I hope there are no further concerns with the image.
 * The redirect to the WASP dab has been resolved. No further links to dab pages exist.
 * The external link tool showed one dead link which I've removed because it wasn't extremely useful anyways; two other references still exist to cite the sentence in question. There seem to be no further issues with ELs.
 * I look forward to further input. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, good work on addressing those and I'm certainly a lot happier with that fair use rationale now- it feels less of a boilerplate and certainly explains the significance of the image. I'm in the process of reading through and I have a few suggestions for you:
 * Specifics:
 * The quotes used in the "themes" section require a citation immediately after the closing quote mark, not just at the end of the sentence
 * . Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You should explain WASP for the first time it's used, even if it is linked (I think it's important enough in the context)
 * . I expanded the link to full title with abbreviation immediately following in brackets. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Roach then cast Stiller for the role of Greg Focker because he could think of no one better for that type of role[24][27] and because he was also impressed with Stiller's improvisational and ad lib abilities."
 * That sentence needs a bit of a rework
 * You don't need two connectives
 * . Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of using "USD $", just pipe "$"- like $ - it's tidier and saves the duplication
 * . Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In "crtical reception", again you need citations immediately after quotes.
 * . Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * bbc.co.uk should just be "the BBC"
 * . Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're to take this on to FAC, you'll need work and publisher in your references- most have one or the other but few have both
 * Point taken on this one. I have come to realize that some work is needed before this can be considered FA quality. This will be one of the things that I'll have to correct prior to FAC. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the references is something you can work on prior to the FAC. The rest are all minor issues, so I'll pass this as soon as they're fixed. HJ Mitchell |  Penny for your thoughts?   15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All of the above issues have now been addressed. Please review and let me know if I've missed something. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'm happy to pass this. Contrary to what I said above, for the first use of $, you should probably stick US in front of it (without a space) on the very, very faint chance that it gets confused with one of the other currencies called dollar This certainly meets the GA criteria, for further progression- towards FAC- the problems that will hold you back seem to be purely technical now that the above are fixed. Once the references are filled out- ideally, all would have title, URL, author, work, publisher, publication date, accessdate though authors and publication dates aren't always available- any other issues should be minor and fixable within the time frame of an FAC, though the references will be tedious. For a tip, publishers can be tricky- it's easy to fall into the trap of giving the owner of the publishing company rather than the publisher itself. Good work. HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   20:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, mentioning all publishers is not necessary. Template:Cite news says to only use the "publisher" field for publications that are not major.  For example, if it is the New York Times, it is not necessary.  For ComingSoon.net, it would help. Erik (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)