Talk:Rock of Ages (2012 film)

Rock of Ages (2012 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 29, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Musical Numbers in The Film

Has there been any news of what the musical numbers that will be using in the film? Will they be using all the songs from the boradway version? Headstrong 345 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Headstrong 345[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rock of Ages (2012 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to review this article for GA status. I see no obvious/outright QuickFail issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I've only had time to do a few passes through the article but I think the tense of the verbs needs to be gone over.
For instance, under "Soundtrack" there's this: It has sold 320,000 copies as of May 2013. That should probably be "had sold". Updated stats for the soundtrack would be a good thing if available. Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if updated stats are available for any of the various parameters - continuing sales/streaming, soundtrack's most recent sales, if critics have changed their minds, has it now turned into a cult movie of some sort, etc - that would be helpful/interesting. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done first. As for the second point, the film has generally faded from the mainstream. I don't think any continuing sales or streams will be of a high number, and from what I can tell it has not seen a cult resurgence. Rusted AutoParts 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Still looking at this...seems ok, but want to do another deep read to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is looking good but I have a small quibble with the lead - the mention of the soundtrack going gold in Canada seems not as important as how well it did worldwide? Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to reflect debuting on Billboard at no.1 Rusted AutoParts 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is a higher number sales award it would seem to be more major/higher-visibility. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Yes, the references are all in agreement with each other. It is refreshing that so many of the refs have Archived links. Just a personal preference and not in the GA stuff but would it be possible to give all of them an archived/Wayback Machine link? The further away in time we get from the release year/date the more likely link rot will occur... Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Yes. Scrupulously sourced, well-done. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
At first, I wasn't sure the Plot & Cast sections didn't somehow need cited sources but then did some research and, yes, the film itself is the source. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No copyvios/plagiarism found. Got a weird result on Earwig's copyvio tool but in my opinion that site - lookupsometimes(dot)com - is a mirror/not-secure/etc & can be safely disregarded. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Yes. What more is there to say? It covers the movie and its main aspects etc. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Yes. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Tells the movie's stories dispassionately - so, yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Yay, no edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images are tagged & described correctly. One small quibble...should the poster be described in its file description as a "Promotional teaser for upcoming film."? Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Relevant and appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
PASS:
Pending 1A & 1B. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: addressed the points of concern. Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to read through the article a few more times to make sure I haven't missed anything. Will update within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks fine but there is a problem with Ref #58 - "Gold ANd Platinum Certifications Canada". musiccanada.com. musiccanada.com. January 15, 2013. Retrieved January 19, 2013. It is not rendering to a valid URL. Once that ref is fixed - Didn't know "Certification Table Entry" nomenclature at all before this Review - I will be able to pass the article to GA status. Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: I deleted it. Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and congrats. Shearonink (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]