Talk:Simultaneous release/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• History and talk looks clear
• Copyvio check clear
• Sources look good
• Looks broad enough, notable cases section adds to this
• No images, doesn't seem like there would be any appropriate (could include a portrait in the notable cases, but really not needed)
• While I'm familiar with the term "day-and-date" as common for this purpose, it is a colloquialism that is predominantly if not entirely used in North America (and not even everywhere there), and should be replaced with the much better and widely-understood "on the same day"
• Don't need the dash in in very close proximity to each other — as opposed to the industry standard
• The sentence beginning Due to their disruptive nature is run-on and needs to be split or have improved phrasing and punctuation; it currently loses its trail
• Don't need comma in (which in some countries, is also enforced by law)
• Probably does not need cannibalizing, which is not an appropriate tone and also is not very clear at all - find a better way to explain?
• Repetition of 'typically' in These windows are typically enforced by the industry; major cinema chains will typically refuse - would be better if a different word used in one instance
• Saying as long as six months, to as little as four seems not only inaccurate (home videos definitely took longer than six months to come out for a while) but also completely underwhelming - if the maximum wait at peak was 6 months, and the minimum wait at fall was 4 months, the average at both times could easily be the same (say, 5 months) or even overlapping. It is also something that might warrant more than one source, so as to give a wider reflection of the industry. I'd look to reinforcing or removing this clause.
• The notable examples section doesn't connect paragraphs well (and some not at all), so it's basically a list apart from the coronavirus part. Perhaps add a sub-heading for COVID-19, too, since (as discussed later) it could/has really turned the industry towards this format. (This may also warrant a mention in the lead, but I wouldn't add that yet since the pandemic and its impact are still in progress)
• Reception seems well-written.

Overall

• on hold A few things to fix. I've also added some comments relating to the future of the article when the pandemic is over and its impact firmly assessed. Kingsif (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Recent edits addressed these. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• They did, thanks for replying :) Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)