Talk:V for Vendetta (film)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): ; b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): ; b (citations to reliable sources): ; c (No original research):
 * Please correctly format reference #36.
 * -Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * -Done--Iankap99 (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please fix reference #58.
 * Web archive does not have any sources for this, I removed the ref.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved the reference "V for Vendetta – Graphic Enough? by Kurt Jacobsen" to "Further Reading," although it doesn't quite seem to fit there or as an external link. Ideally it should be worked in as a reference. It needs to be properly formatted or else removed.
 * I formatted it properly (I think)--Iankap99 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please provide additional references for the Marketing section.
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Congratulations on a very well-written article! I will be happy to award GA status once the minor edits above have been completed. Review on hold for seven days to allow these issues to be addressed. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to fail this article within two days if someone doesn't take some kind of action to redress the one remaining issue identified in the review (or at least tell me they are working on it). It's a pity because this article is so close to GA and absolutely deserves it with just a few minor fixes that I am not able to make myself. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it, the sales numbers are somewhat hard to find, I'll source more statements and let me know if it's good. then.--Iankap99 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see a ref improve banner on the Soundtrack section, and a red link in the External links section. BollyJeff  ||  talk  21:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Almost there - we just need to deal with the Soundtrack section and then the article will be ready to go! - Lemurbaby (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I source the entire section to the amazon soundtrack article?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any reason why not. I say go for it. If another reviewer wants to weigh in with another opinion after the GA has been awarded, we'll respond to those concerns as they're raised. - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good idea, usually amazon is not seen as a reliable source. I think that the prose is mostly original research, it explains where the songs appeared in the movie.  The soundtrack section should contain information on either how the music was created or selected.  It could also explain how well it sold, when it was sold, and if there were any other interesting facts while it was it being recorded.  --Peppage tlk  06:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay so that section needs to be rewritten per these suggestions. Anyone want to give it a try? -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Last chance - I will have to fail this article tomorrow if someone does not take action on the soundtrack section. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I will give it a try --Iankap99 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Iankap99, thank you for your hard work to bring this article to GA. I noticed in rereading that there are a number of points where it is indicated that citations are needed. I also added two more today. Would you please read through the entire article and find an appropriate reference for each of the points where a citation is needed? Then this article will be complete. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed most, the rest I can't find sources for. Feel free to remove the statements if you see it fit.--Iankap99 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is looking excellent. We're almost there. I'm going to allow the links to amazon.com for now, and if anyone else finds "better" links to prove these points about related merchandise, please feel free to improve the references. I noted that more recent links haven't been archived. This can be done using Webcite, and once that's complete, all the citations in this article that have a link to a website need to add the "archiveurl" and "archivedate" fields. Then this article should be ready to go to GA. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I substituted the Warner Bros' website for the amazon.com links, not the perfect source but far better. Otherwise I think this article is looking fantastic. Browsing through its long history, I notice a pedigree but it has never been so deep or polished. Hearty congratulations to all involved. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to award this article GA. Although references will need to be archived before it can be raised to FA status, the current reference information is adequate for GA. Congratulations to everyone involved for all your hard work. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)