Talk:End of Watch/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Corvoe (talk · contribs) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted by Corvoe 01:14, 22 June 2014 [1]

Hello 97198! I'll be reviewing End of Watch's article today. Let's get right to it.

Well-written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:

Immediate problems with the plot section: "The film opens with..." The summary should describe the events without referring to the film itself, with the exception of post-credits scenes. The section is too long (739 words). Weird wording choices ("At the police funeral, it is revealed Taylor survived, because Zavala's body had shielded him from the gangsters' gunfire"). Lots of other nitpicky copy-edits I'll make later. Plot section definitely needs the most work, but it could all use a copy-edit. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut down the plot so it is now under 600 words. I made the changes you suggested and have clarified the wording in several other places. 97198 (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

For ref 7, page numbers need to be specified either in the article using {{rp}} or the ref parameter |pages=. Otherwise, all good.

Page numbers added. 97198 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
it contains no original research:

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

Semi-related, but in the Reception section, a man named Rick Grohn is mentioned without any assertion of his relevance. Who is he? I know he writes for The Globe and Mail since I looked at the source, but others may do what I initially did and think "So?" Corvoe (speak to me) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text above says "In a review for The Globe and Mail, however, Rick Groen..." but I have repeated it in the second instance for clarity. 97198 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Total lack of images outside of the film poster. This is definitely an issue. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two images. 97198 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

Poster is fair use. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

The poster says what it needs to. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: It's a well done article with a lot of good information, but the writing style needs some work and it needs illustrations. You're not far away though! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've made the changes you suggested. Let me know if you think there's anything else that should be done. 97198 (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: I've made a few more changes in (as of this posting) the most recent edit. Take a look and see if you disagree with any of my changes. As far as writing goes, I think it's ready to go, but the lack of images is still withholding me from saying yes. Your addition was good, but it still needs more. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your changes look good. I'm unsure about what images you want to be added - I feel like any further images would simply be there for the sake of having pictures, and wouldn't really improve the article. Note that many film GAs and even FAs have fewer images, and that the GA requirement is simply "Illustrated, if possible, by images". Was there anything specific where you think a relevant free image could be added? 97198 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: I'm gonna totally revoke that comment, because I had my internet shrunk down and it seemed like there was a lot of text blocks. It looks completely fine with just those two, considering that the article isn't extremely long. Quick criticisms I missed earlier, the "Release" and "Reception" section can probably go under one heading, and the current "Release" section needs to be broken up. It should have text under the header discuss the release dates and premieres, then a box office section, a "Critical response" section, and a brief "Home media" section to tie it off. Definitely needs more box office information at the very least, then I can safely say I'll pass it (granted, I could be wrong again. I'm not trying to be misleading, I just don't notice everything on a first runthrough).

Also, and this is no means a "make or break" thing, having a brief description of the character after their names would be nice. Perhaps some quotes from Ayer or the actors on how they interpret the character? Just a thought, not something that will make me fail it though. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've restructured and expanded the "Release" section. However, I've left the "Reception" section as-is since it is quite long and I think it works well where it is. WP:MOSFILM doesn't have any concrete guidelines about how to structure these sections; it suggests to organise them however they seem to work best for readability. What's your take? 97198 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@97198: Good changes! And not putting the reception under Release is fine by me, it's just what I personally tend to do. I'd say it reads well now, keeps release from being too bloated. Also, I got a Flickr photographer to change the permissions of one of his photos, so we now have a picture of Peña and Ayer at Comic-Con. Progress! I'm gonna give it one more gloss over, maybe make some more copy-edits, but I'd say we're good for promotion after that. Excellent work! Corvoe (speak to me) 02:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for adding that photo! 97198 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]