Talk:The Wiz (film)/GA2

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Wiz (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

OK, problems
 * The "Plot" section is entirely unsourced. — Realist  2  04:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some refs seem unreliable.
 * Is http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/films.php?id=7309 suitable to review a film? — Realist  2  04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/wiz/, never liked these guys for a GA article. — Realist  2  04:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078504/business Unreliable source. — Realist  2  04:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8205749 Dead link. — Realist  2  04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a minor copy edit too really. — Realist  2  04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Responses
 * 1) Please see WP:FILMPLOT regarding established consensus on this. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Removed this source. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Removed Rotten Tomatoes as a source in main body text, it is sufficient as a WP:EL. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Removed IMDB as source for business info, this same info is backed up to multiple other WP:RS/WP:V sources anyways. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Removed the deadlink - however enough material is already provided in the citation itself to satisfy verifiability, and San Jose Mercury News is a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) IMO a minor copyedit is not a reason to delist a stable WP:GA, but something that could have been raised on the article's talk page prior to moving forward with a WP:GAR. However please point out specifically what could be improved and I will be glad to work on it. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By far and away my only major concern was the plot, I never realized that the plot did not need sourcing. Oh, my bad. If wiki policy says it doesn't need sourcing, then that's fine by me, most certainly. I will close this review now. It still meets criteria evidently. Lol, we definitely need a BIG sign somewhere so that don't happen again! At least you know its still GA worthy. — Realist  2  04:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your understanding. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)