Talk:Singapore Dreaming/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review this article for GA status. I'm sorry it's taken so long. I will probably make some minimal changes during the course of the review -- punctuation, spelling, typos, grammar, minor wording, etc. I hope that's OK. If any of these changes are problematic for you, feel free to revert or revise. With luck, I should be finished within 7 days. Thanks to all who have contributed to this article.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article and considering some of the comments made when the article was reassessed 5 years ago, it seems that two of the major concerns expressed in the reassessment have not been addressed adequately. I'm inclined to fail the article, but will put it on hold for a week in case the nominator or other editors want to address the problems. It's an interesting article, broad in coverage; but it's not ready for GA status based on a couple of major issues, as indicated below. Thanks to all who have contributed to the article and are working towards improving the quality of the wikipedia film project.--Jburlinson (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've received no feedback so I'm going to fail the article for now. I hope editors will consider some of the concerns raised here and in previous assessments and that we can work together to resolve these issues. Once again, thanks to all who are working to improve the quality of wp articles on film.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Major issues with the prose identified in previous GA reviews have been corrected for the most part. There are still a few typos/punctuation errors that need correcting and minor wording changes might be helpful here and there, but, on the whole, the article is pretty much OK.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead states that there were positive reviews from local critics, yet none are mentioned in the article itself and the section on "critical reception" is blank.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	The article is heavily dependent on blogs closely associated with its subject. Please see WP:QUESTIONABLE for a discussion of issues. In addition, the single most often cited source is a podcast for the mrbrown show and the link is to a password protected site. I found the podcast in question elsewhere and it consists of an interview with the filmmakers, which further raises the issue of questionable sources. These type of sources can be helpful when used in moderation, but there can be problems of NPOV when they become the primary sources for the article. .
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The section on "critical reception" is totally blank. This issue was also identified in the 2009 reassessment of the article and was considered a major gap in coverage. A section on "home media" would be helpful.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	When so many sources are associated with the creators of the film, NPOV comes into question.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	fail. .	I'll keep the review open pending response & discussion about the points raised above. I'm putting the article on hold for a week to give editors a chance to address some of the concerns expressed above and in the 2009 reassessment. Please let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss further. Having received no feedback in the past week, I've failed the article for now. I'm open to discussion. Thanks.--Jburlinson (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Based on your comments, I have decided to withdraw the nomination, with apologies. --Hildanknight (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]