Talk:No Pressure (2010 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, before I start my review, I must say that the article is quite interesting to read. I don't understand why blowing up people to promote people to reduce their carbon outtake. Now then, here are some problems I found in the article.

*The lead of the article needs more information about it all. Like, what some of the reviews say about the film. Also, the word "controversial" should be removed because it is puffery.

Links 9-12, 22, 34, 35, and 36 needs to be cited.

Link 5 is dead.

~~There is a {{syn}} template in the Withdrawl article.~~
Looking at the Reception section, I think that some of the paragraphs should be merged together.
There is a dab link in the article.

- More to come later. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from disinterested Wikipedian: The word "controversial" seems fine to me, especially in the lead section. See WP:LABEL for the specific section where "controversial" is listed (the concern isn't that "controversial is verboten, but that it might be used to promote fringe views). As the article discusses, the controversy surrounding the film, described in the body of the article, is one of the defining characteristics of the film. Link 10 looks fine to me as a WP:NEWSBLOG. The other blog links (9, 11, 12, and 22) appear to be citing bloggers' opinions; if those opinions belong in the article (without compromising WP:NPOV), they can be used as sources for the opinions of the bloggers, but not as sources for facts about the film. Link 34 is a primary source that I agree is being misused to imply (via original research) that certain sponsors pulled upon the release of the film. Link 35 looks reliable to me, as it is run by a magazine. Link 36 needs a citation to a specific release. Link 5 does indeed suffer from linkrot; it would be wise to get another copy (see WP:LINKROT). RJaguar3 | u | t 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cite-tagged details about production (low carbon efforts, zero flight policy etc) were added on October 1st before this article was even forked (this diff). It was cited to a press release, now a dead link. Apparently nothing on google. Not sure how to track that down... anyone have any ideas?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have so far drawn a blank, it might be time to delete this. Jprw (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ROT, if citation is still possible in the absence of a working URL, it does not necessarily need to be verifiable online. If we are happy with this, it could remain cited to a hard-copy press-release like so: Crouch, Anderson, Radiohead in mini-movie (press release), oneworld.net, 1/10/2010.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we could keep it, it fits well into the background section. Jprw (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With these edits [1][2][3][4] I have tried to address the bulk of the concerns raised by the reviewer GamerPro64. It will be interesting to see where we go from here. Jprw (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I'm not entirely sure that the article is Well written and is Factually accurate and verifiable. I'm going to ask for a second opinion. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to just get a new review subpage started to get a review going; due to the GA drive one would happen fast if we took this route. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]