Talk:The Punisher (2004 film)/GA2
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Renomination
- This addresses your renomination of the article. I have noted some issues below and may add more as I look through the article.
- Cquotes are deprecated for quotes now. You should use either blockquotes or quote. See MoS quotations.
- Also, the blue pull quote should not have quotations inside it.
- Could you elaborate on the "Release and reception" section? What did critics like/dislike about the film? In other words, can you be more specific?
- Also, web references need publishers and access dates
- I have used a script to delink the dates per WP:Overlink.
—Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- I notice that you are working on the article and have the following suggestions.
- Is there no more about the "Release and reception" that you can add?
- Some references do not seem reliable per WP:RS, for example (I did not go through all of them, but any references you use must meed the reliable source standards.
- http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=7025
- http://www.comicbookmovie.com/punisher/news/?a=962
- http://www.writingstudio.co.za/page590.html
- http://www.superherohype.com/punisher/index.php?id=198
- http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5685
- http://latinoreview.com/news.php?id=2452
- http://fanboyradio.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=237976
- http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32673
- http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/4608/tcid/1
- http://www.prismawards.com/winners/
- http://www.taurusworldstuntawards.com/index.php?cmd=cmdPastNominees&year=2005
- Also, for references you must show author, publisher, and accessdate or retrieved date for web sources, page number for books etc. One way is to use citation templates like Citations of generic sources citation family or the Template:Citation family. You can also do them by hand and not use a template. Look at Batman or other movies to see examples.
- Look for articles on movies similar to this one at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Featured_articles to get ideas for how a film article ideally should be. (Not that you are expected to raise this article to FA status, but it may give you some ideas.)—Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Although I have tried to copy edit the prose, it still needs work
b (MoS): 
- a (prose): Although I have tried to copy edit the prose, it still needs work
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): References are provided b (citations to reliable sources): However, the sources do not seem to be reliable, being mostly questionable web sites
c (OR):
- a (references): References are provided
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): yes b (focused):
- a (major aspects): yes
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: I am guessing that it is NPOV
- Fair representation without bias: I am guessing that it is NPOV
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
There has been very little work on the article recently and no comments on this page from the nominator. The article still needs more copy editing. However, the most pressing problem is that the references are unreliable. Sorry!
—Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)