Talk:Snow Shark: Ancient Snow Beast/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bluesphere (talk · contribs) 08:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Hiya mate, I'll review this one. After giving the article an in-depth look, here's what I have to say about it:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
 * Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.


 * Comments


 * Infobox: The running time has no citation. ✅
 * ❌ Rotten Tomatoes is a questionable source to support this one since, like IMDb, it's user-generated content. I prefer independent source for this claim, so just use citation #10, which is a review.


 * Lead: Firstly, I recommend not using run-on in this sentence: The film stars Qualiana alongside Michael O'Hare, Kathy Murphy, C. J. Qualiana, Jackey Hall, and Andrew Elias, and follows the residents of a small town who are terrorized by a prehistoric man-eating shark that can swim through snow. Secondly, the film's DVD release is not covered here, please add. ✅
 * Plot: You devote a link for New York which pipes to the article New York. Just rename that link as such as it redirects to the article about the state, not the city. ✅
 * Cast: Although obviously true, the cast section has no citations. This has to be backed by source for the sake of verifiability.
 * Production: Not bad covering the aspects of the film's production about a low budget flick. However, I feel like these sentences The film premiered at Dipson's Amherst Theater in Buffalo on April 10, 2012, and was subsequently shown at the Screening Room Cinema Café in Williamsville, New York two days later. On May 12, the film was screened at the South Bronx Film Festival. are scope of the "Release" section. ✅
 * Release: The film has a score of 29% "Rotten" on review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, based on 35 user ratings. Unsourced. I would also remove that "Rotten" badge that RT gave the film; like the "Fresh" and "Certified Fresh", it is too nuanced to be included and is devoid of context. ✅
 * ❌ In retrospect, I think leaving this one was a bad idea. We usually report the RT approval rating from surveyed critics, not from user ratings. Can you just replace this one with another review from a critic, say from other horror outlets such as Bloody Disgusting or Shock Till You Drop? Lastly, you put the DVD release before the theatrical release. Obviously, you know what's wrong here, please fix.


 * See also: Put List of natural horror films at the top of the bulleted list. ✅
 * References: Since the sources are web-based, I would change the inline parameter "location" and "publisher" params into "website". ✅
 * I've fixed essentially all of the concerns, although I had a different idea for one of them. For the issue about verifying the cast, I decided for the sake of cluttered citations that, rather than give sources for the cast in that section, I'd add a citation next to the "starring..." sentence in the lede paragraph. What do you reckon about the article now? – Matthew  - (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if some of the casts here (whether supporting or main) won't be verified with references, I would just remove them. Besides, none of the names are in the faintest bit notable nor do they have their articles in the mainspace. Just leave the casts that have been mentioned in the lead, and provide a repeated ref each (cite #2).  Blue sphere  07:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I've cited everyone in the cast section that I could, and removed those that couldn't be verified. I've removed the influence of Rotten Tomatoes, aside from in the "External links" section, and replaced the RT citation in the infobox with a reference to Mondo Digital. I also put the sentence about the DVD release after the theatrical premiere/film festival showing information. How's it looking? – Matthew  - (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This one's good to go. Good job, passed!  Blue sphere  13:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)