Talk:The Profit (film)/GA1

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments:
 * 1) Is there a precedent for a "Taglines" sections? If there is, please show me an example of a GA/FA that includes it and that will be fine. Otherwise, I don't see why this information needs to be its own Level 2 heading, if present in the article at all (especially since the taglines can be seen in the posters and could easily be incorporated into the prose of the article).
 * 2) The plot section should conform to WP:FILM's plot guidelines and should contain far more detail about the events of the film, rather than the general synopsis that is its current state.
 * 3) "(taken by some observers to be a parody of L. Ron Hubbard)" (Plot) requires a citation because it looks like original research in its current state.
 * 4) The lead should conform to WP:LEAD, which it comes close to doing, but does not quite satisfy. There is no mention, for example, of the plot in the lead (which will definitely need to be there once the plot section is expanded).
 * 5) All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
 * 6) The direct quotes in the "Reception" require citations immediately following them, even if they are contained in the reference at the end of the paragraph.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Addressing points from GA review
Thanks for doing the GA review, I will address the above points, and note them here, below. Cirt (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) ✅ - Removed the Taglines section, as suggested above. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 2) Plot expansion - pending. Will address this within the seven days allotted.  Cirt (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 3) ✅ - Moved a cite to specify/back up the L. Conrad Powers/L. Ron Hubbard comparison in plot section. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 4) Lead expansion (summarizing plot a bit more). Will address this within seven days.  Cirt (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 5) ✅ - Merged small one/two sentence paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 6) ✅ - Added citations after direct quotes in Reception section. Cirt (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

Have updated the review accordingly. For the plot section, it can probably be shorter than is standard but, since the film has debuted (at Cannes), there should be some more information on the plot. In any case, just let me know when you want me to take another look at it if you get it done early - otherwise I'll be back once the hold is up and review it given the circumstances. Cheers, CP 15:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Cirt (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Please give me a teensy bit more time, I've had a lot on my plate but I will try to get on this soon. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem. This article is close enough and obviously enough has been done that I have no problem extending the hold. Cheers, CP 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article seems to have become stale after the extended hold. For this reason, I am going to fail the article at this time. As the article is very close to being a Good Article, please let me know when these concerns have been addressed and the article has been renominated, and I will give it a second review immediately, so that you don't have to wait another month. If you feel that this decision is in error, you may take it to good article review. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely understandable, and I will do just that. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC).