Talk:South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut/GA1

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

Reviewer: —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC) As a proud member of the WikiProject South Park, I'd love to see this article reach GA status one day, but just a cursory glance at it makes very clear that it's not ready just yet. There are many problems with this article that need to be addressed before it could even come close to GA consideration: Sorry to have to quick-fail this one, but it's just not ready. Please don't be discouraged, and try to take this review as a jumping point from which to make improvements. Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The most glaring problem is the complete and utter lack of a "Production" section. There is nothing about the development, pre-production, production, filming or post-production. And I know for a fact there are plenty of sources out there about this for this film. (The DVD commentary track might be a good place to start.) You might also take a look at Death (South Park), a GA, which has information about how that episode heavily influenced the film. Right now, this article makes no mention of that episode...
 * Furthermore, the nominator might want to take a look at WP:MOSFILM to get an idea of what else is currently lacking. For one, there is no "Themes" section, and this film has plenty of those (commentary on censorship, how the parents' priorities are all wrong, violence and strong language in media, etc. etc.).
 * The plot summary is too long. WP:FILMPLOT says a synposis should be between 400 and 700 words, whereas this is currently over 900 words.
 * As it stands, most of this article is taken up by lists. (Cast list, musical numbers, list of distributors, list of awards, list of records). The nominator should take a look at consider changing some of these into prose.
 * The "critical reception" section is extremely brief at two sentences. Some specific reviews should be added.
 * The article as a whole could use a good copy edit, but considering how much work needs to be done, that should be saved for last. Also, a minor point, but the citations should use Cite web or Cite news templates.
 * I worked on some of those sections. If there's still work to be done, let me know. Railer-man (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, its still nowhere near GA status. Look at an article like The Simpsons Movie (it's an FA), then look at this one. There are a tonne of unsourced statements, the article needs more production info, and more reception. -- Scorpion 0422  23:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)