Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chef (film)/1
Chef (film)
[edit]- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: No consensus for delisting DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I look at this article and cannot help but wonder how it achieved GA status. There's really not that much in way of production details, the pictures are overlapping into other sections, making it look messy, certain sentences are at best trivia, etc. When compared to other GA articles like Lone Survivor, Pacific Rim, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and so on, Chef by no means meets the same amount of content and quality they do. Rusted AutoParts 18:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment not sure about this one. Meets all criteria but sure can be improved a bit.
- 1a:yes
- 1b:y
- Several MoS issues
- 2a:y
- 2by
- Only consists of Primary sources
- 2c:y
- 3a:y
- I'm not sure about this
- 3b=y
- 4=y
- 5=y
- 6=y
- 7=neutral
I think it's good to Keep, but shouldn't be nominated for FAC.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- While the article can definitely be improved, I don't think it necessarily fails any of the GA criteria. While a number of MOS issues are present, 1b only specifies 5 MOS guidelines, Lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, and this article seems to satisfy those five. While there are some primary sources, it looks like there are a good number of secondary sources and critique: they have the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today. Likewise, Primary sources aren't forbidden, just to be used with care, and I don't see any uses that are red flags. While it's coverage is not comprehensive, it definitely touches on the main aspects of a film: it's plot, cast, production, and reception.
- While it's far from FA quality, and far from some of the better GAs, it doesn't seem to fail the GA criteria.Wugapodes (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)