Talk:More (1969 film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 07:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   The lead is full of sources, which per MOS:LEADCITE ought to not be there. Parts like "a little bit came from the" and "between addiction of drug, sexual freedom and beauty of life that refers New Wave film" breach the prose criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  

   Here it is revealed that the article is far from a serious nomination, with several paragraphs that are unsourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   The article is meagre in its information about the subject and clearly needs more research to meet the criterion.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

   Parts like "and is a fantastic example of the counterculture" and "a lovely ballad featuring bongos" are obvious examples of WP:POV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

7. Overall: Immediate fail. It doesn't even look like the nominator paid attention to step 1 of the instructions. Cognissonance (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

   Pass/Fail: