Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. sst ✈ 01:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at MOS:NOVELS, the article in its current state may need significant restructuring. Would you mind if you start reviewing a few days later? I apologize for the inconvenience. sst ✈ 01:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a big topic -- with a lot more secondary source coverage than is currently represented in the article. One would expect subsections for Themes, Genre, Impact, Academic analysis, at least a couple of those. Very very very good model at = The Time Traveler's Wife. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently split material in this article to Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey due to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV concerns. Do you think it should be selectively merged back into this article, and serve as a Themes section? ~~I will also add a new section about the background/conception of this novel (as Twilight fan fiction named Master of the Universe), since it is quite well covered in independent sources.~~ An Impact section is also possible. However, due to my lack of content creation experience, this may take some time. sst ✈ 04:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to all of the above, all great ideas. As I haven't even begun the actual review yet, and I've got one other one, Wings for My Flight, ahead of this one to review, the time period can be extended surely a bit beyond the normal Seven Days. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer:Let me know when you're ready for me to start the review? — Cirt (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may fail it now if you are in a hurry. sst ✈ 05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no, I'm not sure yet but I would probably put it on hold. Anyways, I took on another GA Review, and put that one as priority above this one. Please though, do keep me posted here, when you're ready. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: So I did some research, concluded that an Impact section would be feasible but not necessary, and a Themes section would be quite difficult... after all, this is GA, not FA. You may start the review if you wish. If this article needs to be failed, so be it. sst ✈ 16:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, you're correct that it's GA level review and not FAC. In the interim, due to comments requesting more time, above, I'd put several other GA Reviews on my plate. I'll get to those first and then come back to this one. — Cirt (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 28, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
Copyvio Detector tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Fifty+Shades+of+Grey&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - shows "violation unlikely" - GREAT JOB HERE, NICELY DONE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, EXCELLENT !!!
Per WP:LEAD, LEDE intro sect should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. I'd expect for an article this size and scope and breadth of topic -- at least four (4) paragraphs of at least four (4) sentences each.
The word "but" is used four (4) times in Reception sect. This seems to be done as a qualifier: "the reviewer gave a negative review, BUT said this tiny part was awesome about the book..." -- that seems a bit POV. If overall Reception of that particular review was negative, the excerpted quote should reflect that, without the "but" caveats.
The word "but" is used seventeen (17) times throughout the entire article. Aside from POV issues with its specific use in Reception sect, it's poor wording in the other places.
"Also" = word used sixteen (16) times in article.

2. Verifiable?:

Per WP:LEADCITE, all material in lede intro sect should be cited instead later in body article text, and then remove all cites from lede.
I'm seeing mixing of cite styles throughout article. As WP:CIT templates are predominately already used, please standardize the article to increase uniformity, throughout, and make sure all cites are standardized with WP:CIT templates.
Checklinks analysis - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Fifty_Shades_of_Grey - shows lots of problems. Problem defined as = anything with a "200" value with a comment next to it, or anything other than a "0" or "200" value. Please archive all those links, and as many other links as possible, with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive with archiveurl and archivedate fields in WP:CIT templates.

3. Broad in coverage?: As noted, above, would expect to find a Themes or Genre sect. For example, Genre would be a good place to discuss critical analysis of the work compared to young-adult fiction, , the book's origins as fan-fiction, the Bronte reference, etc. Themes would be a good sect to discuss the issues from Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey, particularly Depiction of BDSM and Glorification of abusive relationships. And the sect Removal or reduced availability of novels from that split off article could be covered back at this article in a sub sect of Reception titled Censorship.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article not neutral at this time. Material that was split off at Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey should be at least briefly covered back in the article. With a Rotten Tomatoes score of twenty-four (24) percent, which for some reason is not mentioned in favor of the higher Metacritic score, we cannot say the film reaction was "mixed", but rather "negative". The Rotten Tomatoes analysis is based on two-hundred-and-twenty-four (224) reviews -- quite a large sample size here. Lede sect is too short, covers more info about the amazing sales than the reception at this time. That seems a bit imbalanced, at least upon this inspection.

5. Stable? Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, huge chunk of material was recently split off to sub article at Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey. I see a talk page complaint in a sect asking why zero of that material is mentioned or summarized back at parent article. This appears to be unaddressed.

6. Images?: File:50ShadesofGreyCoverArt.jpg - could have better fair-use rationale, see better model at File:TimeTravellersWife.jpg

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nominator responses

7 days, should be doable. sst✈^discuss 16:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image: done. sst✈^discuss 02:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reception section: will WP:TNT later, reusing the reviews currently used. Found a huge neutrality issue (looked at the reviews cited, reception should be described as "mixed" rather than "generally negative". Do not mix up the movie with the book though. sst✈^discuss 02:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rotten Tomatoes consensus determined: "Critics Consensus: While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen." This would seem to indicate that, even with a Rotten Tomatoes score of twenty-four (24) percent, critics actually liked the movie better than the book, (which is usually the reverse with book-adaptations-to-film). This would certainly merit some discussion in the article. However, Erik might be wiser than I on what conclusions to draw from this Rotten Tomatoes analysis, perhaps. — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks - HTTP 301 means permanent redirect, which is totally fine. I checked this about a month ago and confirmed that the websites are usable. sst✈^discuss 03:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd request you please use Wayback Machine by Internet Archive to archive all links with any value other than a "0" or "200" by Checklinks. You can use archiveurl and archivedate fields in WP:CIT templates to accomplish this. It will increase the posterity of the article's quality over the long term. — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, SSTflyer, any update on this? It appears the review has been abandoned. If there is no update in the next few days, it's best to just close this. A new nomination and review can take place afterwards. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you may close this. Cirt has been inactive for more than a month, and the review isn't conducted properly anyway. sst✈^(discuss) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as unsuccessful for now. It's a shame the reviewer hasn't been active lately. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]