Talk:Itim/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Mushy Yank (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 23:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All grammars and spelling are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Better than the first review The lead translation, it should be {{Literal translation|black}}.  Done
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All references are okay.
	2b. 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).	All uses of sources are reliable. Although, the lead was have a citations that should not have a citations but some lead needs a citation so it will fine for this as consideration.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	looks fine and scope of the article was maintained the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	All goods to me.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Meet the WP:NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	the poster are okay, using fair use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	same as 6a.
	7. Overall assessment.	Wait until Mushy Yank to address the recommendation. The article suitable for Good Article and can be now nominated on WP:DYK or in higher on WP:FA nomination. But I would suggest for a peer review before nominate on FA. If you are not statisfied, just do a reassessment on this. Royiswariii Talk! 08:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Hello, Royiswariii and thank you for reviewing this. -Mushy Yank. 13:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

May I ask? Why did you review the own GA? Talk:Itim/GA1? You know you aren't supposed review your own nomination? Royiswariii Talk! 16:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't review my own nomination. I reviewed Kting97's (see User talk:Kting97#Your GA nomination of Itim 2) who seems to have left Wikipedia. (Also see that discussion and my attempt here). Thanks again. -Mushy Yank. 16:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

Royiswariii, I see you've given each criterion a pass with little to no comment. Could you explain in the Review Comment field what made each criterion a pass? Because I just skimmed through the article and found the Cast section and claim about the positive reception the movie allegedly earned to be uncited, contrary to MOS:FILMCAST and MOS:FILMCRITICS. Please note that content assessment such as a GA review requires giving an article an in-depth review and not merely a rubber-stamp approval (WP:GAN/I#R3); lest, you undermine the GA process and create a culture of complacency. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy!

I checked carefully the article and it's looks good to me, I'll add all my review comment, I didn't check for now because i'm too busy in my academics. Royiswariii Talk! 05:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy! Thank you for your note.

Unless I am mistaken, MOS:FILMCAST does not indicate cast sections should have cites; from my understanding, just like Plot section, they refer to the film content (credits), unless actors appear with a different name or are uncredited, per MOSCAST "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source."/"For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided". See Enola Holmes (film)#Cast (GA), for example. Now, you can add refs if you develop the character's description (See Citizen Kane (FA)) and I will add a reference if you think it's better. Most cast members happen to be cited in another section (Casting). Thanks again -Mushy Yank. 05:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Done

I have removed the short sentence about overall positive reception that was indeed meant to introduce the 2 following sentences and contrast it with poor commercial reception. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 06:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Done

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.