Talk:Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gbern3 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Personally I think this article is rather quote heavy. I'm not use to seeing quite so many outside of a reception/critical review section, but I've never heard of there being any limit on quotes. The only requirements I know of are that they can't be too long and they have to be attributed to someone or to some publication and you've done that in this article. Aside from that, I only found a few places that need minor editing for grammar. I hope you don't mind me going in and fixing them. Since there aren't that many, I think it would be quicker if I went in and fixed them rather than create a to-do list here. Just out of curiosity why did you add that copy-edit banner? Technically, that qualifies this article for a quick-fail. FA is a whole different ball game, but for GA standards your writing is fine. I only saw a few places that need touch-up. I don't think this article's prose warrants a fail. I guess my standards are lower than yours?

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Update: MOS compliance is generally observed but for an article of this size, the lead needs another paragraph. That was actually the first thing that struck me about the article, but then I got focused on the references and forgot to mention this in my first response. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
This is the biggest issue in the article. Although the article is suitably referenced, the formatting of those references needs work. A lot of them are missing access dates. Some of them are formatted using citations templates, others are not (your YouTube refs could benefit from using {{cite av media}}). Some of them use the 2012-20-03 date format while others use 20 March 2012. Dates needs to be consistent and the references in general need to be consistent. Green. //Gbern3 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
You have plenty of in-line citations so you've pretty much met the standard here except for this one quote I found in the Music section that was not sourced: "...and the film score was the work of by the Icelandic composer Atli Örvarsson (co-author of Zimmer's score for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) who had previously scored Season of the Witch and so initially was 'a bit apprehensive' to work on another witchcraft film but was 'too fond of the story to say no and found Tommy Wirkola’s take on the subject matter to be very refreshing.'" Add a citation to this sentence or take it out altogether and I'll green this up. Green. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update So I was doing my random fact-check and I found one sentence with a citation that does not support that sentence: "Viitala, a self-described 'big fan' of Renner, said she was was nervous at first, but found him 'extremely' easy to approach, made a good connection, and enjoyed working with him.[52]" the citation points to this website. There's an image (which I currently can't see; I just have a small .gif icon in place of that image) and a brief synopsis of the film. There isn't any other content. I don't know where the quote could have come from. //Gbern3 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Green. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
~~I don't know if you're aware of this, but the cover image for the soundtrack has been nominated for deletion. The nominator's rationale is sound; the image should probably be removed from the article.~~ Green. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am placing this nomination on hold until the reference formatting and the image issue is fixed. Ping me on my talk page when you're ready for me to review the article again. In the meantime, I'll do minor copy-editing and randomly pick some statements/citations to fact check. //Gbern3 (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to hurry with this at all, in fact it may wait for weeks on. It's not an urgent business in any way. The OST pic is a cropped version of the main poster, it's not really adding much. I've deliberately kept the access dates only for the content that is changing (review aggregators and Box Office Mojo). --Niemti (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to contact you on your talk page to let you know that I put the article on hold, but I guess you're already aware. Let me know when you're ready. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything regarding the composer and the score from the ref at the end of the paragraph. ([1]) --Niemti (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty popular misconception that references need to be in any way "perfected" for a GA. In reality, The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations (typically using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references) for the six types of material named in the GA criteria.[2] The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution, and it should not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research. Perfectly formatted citations are not required. Much more important is an actually "good prose, with correct spelling and grammar", something that I'm notoriously bad at, especially regarding the English tenses that I just guess basically. --Niemti (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your prose isn't bad to me. Not for GA standards. As far as the references, I don't know how I missed that. I've read that whole page before, but it has been a couple years so I guess I forgot. I just finished the random fact-checking. Please see above for the statement I found that needs to be fixed. //Gbern3 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is a video interview, using SpringBoard (you need to wait for it load, the image is just a placeholder for it). YT "stolen" reupload: [3] Also here's another vid of her fangirling on Renner: [4] What else do you think should be in the intro? --Niemti (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, I laughed to myself a little bit when I saw that you inserted a space in the middle of the first paragraph to make two. Clever. I guess technically that makes three paragraphs. There are other film-related good articles with only two paragraphs so I guess I was being annoying. I get it, sorry. I went in and fattened up the lead myself so I'm satisfied now. I tried to remain true to the content you already had in place. Feel free to edit/reword it if you feel that what I added is off track. Congratulations on your good article ;-). //Gbern3 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]