From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead does not fully summarize the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD
    The film compares the aspects of filmmaking and voyeurism. Which aspects?
    explaining what the film was originally conceived to be. Extremely poor prose.
    S&Man exposes the voyeuristic nature of faux snuff films and the desensitizing of modern society. needs in text attribution, sounds like a quote, otherwise it is POV
    S&Man is mainly focused around Eric Rost "focused around"?
    The film has a fictional subplot where Erik Marcisak acts as if he is Eric Rost in a role that tries to raise the question on whether or not Eric Rost's films are really snuff films. confusing and unclear.
    Finding a camera taping his neighbor's house for hours fascinated him so much that he thought that he should direct a film about it. sentence changes subject halfway through.
    OK, please take this away get it copy-edited by someone who can write good plain English. I am quick-failing this now on the shoddy prose. When you have had it copy-edit, please read and apply the good article criteria, then take it to peer review before renominating.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    You might like to investigate some more reliable sources. Fangoria, Bloody Disgusting, Dreadzone are hardly high-quality.
    Just a note that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are both listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential resources as "sources that have been established as reliable in the field of films per past consensus" (emphasis in original). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Quick-fail on the extremely shoddy prose. I am sorry that you have had to wait so long and then get a quick-fail, but you could have avoided this by checking yourself that the article met the good article criteria before you nominated it. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to clarify that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are WP:RS and have been used in numerous GA film articles, especially Fangoria. —Mike Allen 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Dread Central has helped save articles in AfD. I tried fixing everything that was mentioned and renominated it. Hopefully I actually get a chance to fix things if there are anymore problems. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)