| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Golden Link article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The Golden Link was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 14, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Golden Link/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've had to wait a while for a review, but I suspect that this may be because the article is a little under-developed compared to what is generally expected at GAC. There is no word count requirement at GAC, but there is a requirement that the article is "broad in its coverage". I worry that the article is rubbing against this. Every section feels much too brief. Some specific examples:
- The plot section is very short; only a tiny proportion of the characters mentioned in the cast section are mentioned in the plot, for instance. We'd normally be looking (per WP:FILMPLOT) for 400-700 words.
- The production section is also very sparse. There's no information about casting, no information about the actual filming process other than the location, no information about the writing process, inspirations, influences...
I strongly suspect that there will be more sources out there, though I accept that they may not be easy to find. At the very least, I suspect there will be more reviews to find, and I am sure that a fuller plot summary could be written. If there aren't any more sources, I'm worried that there just might not be enough content to justify GA status. Do you think you will be able to eke out a little more? (Also, please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Josh Milburn, thanks for taking a look at this. The problem we have is that this B film is largely unavailable to the regular viewer, I suspect in the exclusive hands of the BFI's archivists. This meant I was forced to piece together the plot from numerous sources, as you can see. The same goes for production I'm afraid, this film being a "throwaway" in the eyes of its creators, though I can assure you I trawled the web for all available sources.
Without breaking the tenet of original research, this is probably the best I can arrange with regard to GA status. I did spot one or two other contemporary reviews, undoubtedly brief, on Google Scholar, but alas did not have the means to access them fully. That said, I'll leave this to your judgement. Curlymanjaro (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, so the plot section is not based on your own viewing of the film? We've got some GA-level lost films with plot sections like this, but for a non-lost film, this does seem very light. Let me know about the contemporary reviews you weren't able to find; I may be able to dig them up. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok - based on the conversation above and the fact that the article/review haven't been touched in weeks, I'm afraid I'm going to have to close this. Sorry. This is not at all a bad article, but I fear that there just isn't enough content here to justify GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)