Talk:Movieland/GA1

GA Review

I've done quite a few adjustments to this article in the last few days, I'm ready for a moment of truth. ViperSnake151 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Therefore, there should be no original information in it, and no references, unless they are being used to back up a direct quote. Original information, with its references, can be moved to the body of the article, and a summary of the information can be left in the lead.
   • There are quite a few short paragraphs and several short subsections. These (especially the paragraphs) should either be expanded or combined with other paragraphs. As for the short subsections, such as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th subsections in the FTC Complaint subsection, is there any way that these could be combined with each other or with other sections? All of the short paragraphs and sections make the article look kind of...choppy...

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The first paragraph of the "Pop-up cycle" section needs a reference.
   • I'm a little confused about the referencing in the "Defendants" section. Is the ref at the end of the intro sentence supposed to reference all of these individuals/companies? If so, what is the purpose of the ref(s) at the end of some of the individual bullet points?
   • In the Pre-trial stipulations section, I'm assuming that the ref after the first sentence is meant to reference the entire section. If this is true, could you put the ref at the end of each of the individual paragraphs in the section? This will make it clearer to other readers where the information is coming from, and make it so that if information is pulled from this section into other articles, or for whatever reason into other sections of the article at some point in the future, then the ref can easily go with it.
   • Are the bracketed dates at the end of each reference the access date or the publication date? You may want to make this clearer. If they're the access date, then those are usually formatted as "Referenced on ..." or "Retrieved on ..." in order to avoid confusion with the publication date. If these are the publication dates, which generally are formatted in the bracketed style, then you need to add access dates for all of your web refs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Is there anything good about this company that has been reported? Any reliable sources of people saying they like this product? Any protests against the FTC action by people outside the company? If not, then that's fine, but it seemed to me when reading the article that the whole thing (other than a brief product description at the beginning) focused on how much litigation had been brought against them.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, this is a very nice article - well written and well referenced. I have a few questions/comments above, and so I am putting the article on hold until these can be resolved. If you have any questions, drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice improvements so far. A few comments:

• I would still like to see the references moved out of the lead. And, the lead could be expanded a bit. I honestly wasn't asking you to shorten the lead, two to three paragraphs is just right for an article this length. I just wanted the references gone and the lead to not have any information in it that wasn't contained (in more detail) in the body. Does this make sense?
• Check out my last comment in the references section, about the dates. Do you have an answer?
• Check out my question in the coverage section. Any more info?
• I was apparently being completely stupid when I didn't realize that the excess refs in the defendants section went to footnotes instead of references. If you don't mind putting these back in, it's probably good information... Sorry about that :(

It shouldn't take much more work for this article to become a GA. Thanks for your quick response. Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking even better. My one final comment is on the reference access dates. First, all web references must have access dates, not just most. If you don't know when the information was originally added to the article, just check to make sure the website is still up and running, and then add today's date. Second, please format them all the same. On one you have it date linked and the others are plain text. Third, on at least one reference you have an access date before the thing was written. This doesn't work... Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)