Talk:Aguirre, the Wrath of God/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Article is in need of a new copy edit. There are some tonal issues throughout the article that need to be addressed. The plot is a little long (also has some interpretive-sounding verbiage). Cast list is not formatted in any method acceptable by WP:MOSFILMS and is misplaced. Response should be Reception and Legacy needs to be under that as its part of the same general broad aspect. UK and US should be spelled out. (Only the Reception section rename was done)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Plot appears to have some interpretations added, which constitute WP:OR. There are several unsourced sentences within the article body. Some none-WP:RS sources are also being employed, such as IMDB, moria.co.nz, and . Many of the other references are in need of formatting fixes and the addition of missing info, such as publisher (or correcting, as a URL is not a publisher). Source 28 to deutsche-filmakademie.de is redirecting to the main site. Also missing accessdates on some web sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As the film soundtrack has its own article, the section in this one is overly long, particularly considering the rather spartan nature of that soundtrack item. Would recommend moving much of the content here to that article, then summarizing here. Also, the last paragraph of the soundtrack section is totally off-topic for this article. The quote in the Filming section about the camera is also off-topic and gives undue weight to an otherwise minor note.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Currently tagged for US bias. Considering it is a German film, the lack of German reviews does seem unbalanced, particularly as the awards its won and its overall "legacy" as indicated by the article would indicate there should be more.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   Excessive WP:NONFREE images in violation of Wikipedia policy. File:AguirreandMonkey.jpg, in the plot section, is not part of any critical commentary and does not convey and additional information not already seen in the infobox image; appears decorative. Ditto on the US film poster, File:AguirrePoster.jpg, whose FUR states it is supported by the text, yet it is not. File:AguirreCD.jpg does not belong in this article, as per the policy. The article is not about this specific work nor is it covered discussed here in. Its already included in the soundtrack article, so unnecessary. (partially fixed; US poster remains without context)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please feel free to respond below. This page will be on my watchlist until the GAR is completed. If the article is not improved or significant effort is being made to improve it, it will be delisted on June 1, 2009.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Very little work was done to fix the article, with the only changes being the removal of all but one of the excessive non-free images and the renaming/organizing of the Reception section. The bulk of the issues have not been addressed and there has been no responses here. With the lack of attention, I'm closing this a little early, so per the above failings of the GA criteria, this article has been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)