Talk:The Imitation Game/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• The "short description" should go above everything else per WP:ORDER.
• The talk page says the article is written in British English so add that template.
• The link for the BBFC reference had changed and should be updated.
• That same reference should also not be in WP:ALLCAPS.
• The second reference the "country" parameter should be properly cited and marked as dead.
• Future sections name this a British film, so shouldn't that be mentioned in the infobox?
• The budget reference is missing several parameters.
• The Box Office Mojo source should go to the summary, not the domestic gross.
• I would also recommend using the "cite Box Office Mojo" template.
• The lead should summarize the entire article and is currently missing any mention of #Production.
• For some reason Alan Turing is linked multiple times so remove the last few per WP:OVERLINK.
• "cryptanalyst Alan Turing" → "cryptanalyst Turing" (already mentioned)
• The lead should also include a link to the awards list.

Plot and cast

• The plot section is under 700 words so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
• Add a serial comma after Keith Furman.
• "The team are" → "The team is"
• Remove the comma after "intercept the messages".
• No issues with the cast section.

Production

 Working

Music

 Working

Release

 Working

Reception

 Working

Social action

 Working

Controversy

 Working

Historical inaccuracies

 Working

Accolades

 Working

References

• Archive sources.
• Why are so many references missing authors, dates, access dates, and websites?
• WhatCulture is not a reliable source and should not be used.
• Same issues with New York Post and Daily Express, so remove their uses per WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYEXPRESS.

 Working

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

• @Isi96: Actually, no. After a long look at the article, I have to fail it per the first note at WP:GAFAIL. There are simply too many issues with the references that a copy edit would be recommended instead. As someone who tries their best to improve citations, that section in this article is simply too much. Some are missing authors and dates while others are missing access dates and websites altogether, and a thorough review would clearly show why this article is really far from being a GA. It also appears that you have not tried to check or improve the article itself, and your most recent edit was in 2019. So, again, please submit this article for a copyedit and feel free to nominate again when you do, but at this moment, this article has been failed its GAN. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for the feedback. I thought the article would be eligible for GA nomination as the WikiProjects had it ranked at B-class. Isi96 (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)