Talk:Serenity (2005 film)/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, I am re-reviewing this article to ensure compliance with current good article criteria. I have determined that it doesn't meet criteria for the reasons outlined below and needs a bit of work if it is to retain its status:

Lead section does not conform to WP:LEAD (isn't a broad and succinct overview of the subject.) There's nothing about production and reception and too much about awards. It's 34KB, which means another paragraph could be warranted, or the existing two could be revamped.
Plot section is way too long, and minor details should be cut down. The rule of thumb that I use is that the plot should be stripped to the bare essentials; then, if anything in the production needs context, you add back in those details. That way you make sure that the plot is comprehensible and serves as context for out-of-universe discussion.
Comprehensiveness is iffy. There's really no more detail on things like development and writing, filming and such (by the way "Design" generally comes before filming.) There are a lot of one ore two-line 'paragraphs' that need to be cut, expanded, or merged. Some of these are unreferenced statements as well.
- There's a very small sampling of critics for the reception section; at the very least this section needs to be beefed up.
- Does the "in other media" section really have anything to do with the film? Cut it.
Images: compliance with WP:NFCC is iffy. There are four non-infobox nonfree images. File:Nathan fillion gun.jpg is redundant with File:Serenity Cast.jpg, and there's no critical commentary to allow the inclusion of File:River.and.reavers.jpg or File:Ffmuleskiff.jpg.

I am putting the article on hold seven days or longer, if a good effort is made to address the above concerns. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As no work has gone into addressing my concerns, I am delisting. Remember you can nominate the article again at any time. Direct any comments to my talk page; I don't watchlist old reviews. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.