42:
490:
sect. This seems to be done as a qualifier: "the reviewer gave a negative review, BUT said this tiny part was awesome about the book..." -- that seems a bit POV. If overall
Reception of that particular review was negative, the excerpted quote should reflect that, without the "but"
362:
So I did some research, concluded that an Impact section would be feasible but not necessary, and a Themes section would be quite difficult... after all, this is GA, not FA. You may start the review if you wish. If this article needs to be failed, so be it.
211:
Yeah, this is a big topic -- with a lot more secondary source coverage than is currently represented in the article. One would expect subsections for Themes, Genre, Impact, Academic analysis, at least a couple of those. Very very very good model at =
483:, LEDE intro sect should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. I'd expect for an article this size and scope and breadth of topic -- at least four (4) paragraphs of at least four (4) sentences each.
376:
Okay, sounds good, you're correct that it's GA level review and not FAC. In the interim, due to comments requesting more time, above, I'd put several other GA Reviews on my plate. I'll get to those first and then come back to this one. —
718:
later, reusing the reviews currently used. Found a huge neutrality issue (looked at the reviews cited, reception should be described as "mixed" rather than "generally negative". Do not mix up the movie with the book though.
399:
This article's Good
Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 28, 2015, compares against the
535:- shows lots of problems. Problem defined as = anything with a "200" value with a comment next to it, or anything other than a "0" or "200" value. Please archive all those links, and as many other links as possible, with
325:
Hey, no, I'm not sure yet but I would probably put it on hold. Anyways, I took on another GA Review, and put that one as priority above this one. Please though, do keep me posted here, when you're ready. :) —
827:, any update on this? It appears the review has been abandoned. If there is no update in the next few days, it's best to just close this. A new nomination and review can take place afterwards.
617:
score of twenty-four (24) percent, which for some reason is not mentioned in favor of the higher
Metacritic score, we cannot say the film reaction was "mixed", but rather "negative". The
473:
459:
only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the
Knowledge (XXG) community by reducing our GA Review
47:
437:
80:
625:
here. Lede sect is too short, covers more info about the amazing sales than the reception at this time. That seems a bit imbalanced, at least upon this inspection.
70:
199:, the article in its current state may need significant restructuring. Would you mind if you start reviewing a few days later? I apologize for the inconvenience.
126:
474:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Fifty+Shades+of+Grey&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
635:. I see a talk page complaint in a sect asking why zero of that material is mentioned or summarized back at parent article. This appears to be unaddressed.
524:
templates are predominately already used, please standardize the article to increase uniformity, throughout, and make sure all cites are standardized with
734:"Critics Consensus: While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."
122:
52:
773:
Checklinks - HTTP 301 means permanent redirect, which is totally fine. I checked this about a month ago and confirmed that the websites are usable.
107:
99:
663:
448:
631:
Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page history, huge chunk of material was recently split off to sub article at
575:
would be a good place to discuss critical analysis of the work compared to young-adult fiction, , the book's origins as fan-fiction, the
662:
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be
401:
75:
745:, (which is usually the reverse with book-adaptations-to-film). This would certainly merit some discussion in the article. However,
641:
415:
Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to
Quality improvement on Knowledge (XXG), it's really most appreciated !!!
875:
840:
532:
517:, all material in lede intro sect should be cited instead later in body article text, and then remove all cites from lede.
494:
The word "but" is used seventeen (17) times throughout the entire article. Aside from POV issues with its specific use in
853:
Sure, you may close this. Cirt has been inactive for more than a month, and the review isn't conducted properly anyway.
632:
610:
584:
235:
645:
254:
An Impact section is also possible. However, due to my lack of content creation experience, this may take some time.
156:
214:
115:
17:
246:
concerns. Do you think it should be selectively merged back into this article, and serve as a Themes section?
802:
templates to accomplish this. It will increase the posterity of the article's quality over the long term. —
248:
I will also add a new section about the background/conception of this novel (as
Twilight fan fiction named
267:
272:, ahead of this one to review, the time period can be extended surely a bit beyond the normal Seven Days.
514:
460:
476:- shows "violation unlikely" - GREAT JOB HERE, NICELY DONE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, EXCELLENT !!!
92:
599:
from that split off article could be covered back at this article in a sub sect of
Reception titled
869:
834:
367:
317:
258:
203:
187:
239:
465:
480:
243:
787:
540:
799:
715:
552:
525:
521:
783:
750:
738:
728:
618:
614:
536:
533:
http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Fifty_Shades_of_Grey
790:
to archive all links with any value other than a "0" or "200" by
Checklinks. You can use
733:
809:
760:
679:
384:
333:
304:
281:
225:
173:
150:
862:
Closing as unsuccessful for now. It's a shame the reviewer hasn't been active lately.
863:
854:
828:
824:
774:
720:
706:
695:
364:
314:
292:
255:
200:
184:
881:
857:
846:
813:
777:
764:
723:
709:
698:
683:
388:
370:
337:
320:
308:
285:
261:
229:
206:
190:
177:
160:
622:
621:
analysis is based on two-hundred-and-twenty-four (224) reviews -- quite a large
196:
820:
804:
755:
746:
674:
379:
357:
328:
299:
276:
220:
168:
146:
268:
As I haven't even begun the actual review yet, and I've got one other one,
576:
741:
score of twenty-four (24) percent, critics actually liked the movie
609:
Article not neutral at this time. Material that was split off at
613:
should be at least briefly covered back in the article. With a
749:
might be wiser than I on what conclusions to draw from this
644:- could have better fair-use rationale, see better model at
297:
Let me know when you're ready for me to start the review? —
666:. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article
252:), since it is quite well covered in independent sources.
520:
I'm seeing mixing of cite styles throughout article. As
659:
entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
425:
entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
134:
103:
451:, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is
435:
only, but I ask you to please at least read over the
501:"Also" = word used sixteen (16) times in article.
583:would be a good sect to discuss the issues from
737:This would seem to indicate that, even with a
234:I recently split material in this article to
8:
498:sect, it's poor wording in the other places.
449:GA candidates from good articles nominations
313:You may fail it now if you are in a hurry.
266:Yes, to all of the above, all great ideas.
30:
597:Removal or reduced availability of novels
486:The word "but" is used four (4) times in
563:As noted, above, would expect to find a
61:
33:
593:Glorification of abusive relationships
7:
672:. Thank you for your work so far. —
669:may be failed without further notice
24:
633:Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey
611:Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey
585:Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey
236:Criticism of Fifty Shades of Grey
438:Good Article review instructions
642:File:50ShadesofGreyCoverArt.jpg
395:Good article nomination on hold
166:I will review this article. —
1:
882:05:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
858:02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
847:20:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
447:reviewing two to three (2-3)
814:03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
778:03:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
765:03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
724:02:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
710:02:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
699:16:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
684:16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
389:04:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
371:16:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
338:05:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
321:05:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
309:15:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
286:04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
262:04:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
230:01:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
207:01:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
191:01:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
178:00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
161:00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
782:I'd request you please use
646:File:TimeTravellersWife.jpg
900:
694:7 days, should be doable.
607:4. Neutral point of view?:
402:six good article criteria
18:Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey
714:Reception section: will
472:Copyvio Detector tool -
215:The Time Traveler's Wife
731:consensus determined:
689:GA Nominator responses
561:3. Broad in coverage?:
531:Checklinks analysis -
250:Master of the Universe
753:analysis, perhaps. —
195:Actually, looking at
743:better than the book
571:sect. For example,
431:This suggestion is
270:Wings for My Flight
589:Depiction of BDSM
466:paying it forward
409:1. Well written?:
89:
88:
891:
788:Internet Archive
655:Please respond,
579:reference, etc.
541:Internet Archive
463:, and a form of
421:Please respond,
361:
296:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
899:
898:
894:
893:
892:
890:
889:
888:
784:Wayback Machine
751:Rotten Tomatoes
739:Rotten Tomatoes
729:Rotten Tomatoes
691:
619:Rotten Tomatoes
615:Rotten Tomatoes
595:. And the sect
587:, particularly
537:Wayback Machine
507:2. Verifiable?:
397:
355:
290:
218:. Good luck, —
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
897:
895:
887:
886:
885:
884:
850:
849:
818:
817:
816:
770:
769:
768:
767:
712:
702:
701:
690:
687:
664:reviewed again
651:
649:
648:
636:
626:
604:
557:
556:
529:
518:
510:
509:
503:
502:
499:
492:
484:
477:
470:
426:
416:
412:
411:
396:
393:
392:
391:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
193:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
896:
883:
879:
878:
873:
872:
867:
866:
861:
860:
859:
856:
852:
851:
848:
844:
843:
838:
837:
832:
831:
826:
822:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
779:
776:
772:
771:
766:
762:
758:
757:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
730:
727:
726:
725:
722:
717:
713:
711:
708:
705:Image: done.
704:
703:
700:
697:
693:
692:
688:
686:
685:
681:
677:
676:
671:
670:
665:
660:
658:
654:
647:
643:
640:
637:
634:
630:
627:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
527:
523:
519:
516:
512:
511:
508:
505:
504:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
478:
475:
471:
469:. Thank you !
468:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
440:
439:
434:
430:
427:
424:
420:
417:
414:
413:
410:
407:
406:
405:
403:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
366:
359:
339:
335:
331:
330:
324:
323:
322:
319:
316:
312:
311:
310:
306:
302:
301:
294:
289:
288:
287:
283:
279:
278:
274:Good luck, —
273:
271:
265:
264:
263:
260:
257:
253:
251:
245:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
222:
217:
216:
210:
209:
208:
205:
202:
198:
194:
192:
189:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
170:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
876:
870:
864:
841:
835:
829:
803:
795:
791:
754:
742:
732:
673:
668:
667:
661:
656:
652:
650:
638:
628:
606:
600:
596:
592:
588:
580:
572:
568:
564:
560:
548:
544:
506:
495:
487:
464:
456:
452:
443:
442:
436:
432:
428:
422:
418:
408:
398:
378:
354:
327:
298:
275:
269:
249:
247:
219:
213:
167:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
796:archivedate
639:6. Images?:
623:sample size
549:archivedate
515:WP:LEADCITE
461:WP:BACKLOGS
429:Suggestion:
104:visual edit
798:fields in
792:archiveurl
629:5. Stable?
601:Censorship
555:templates.
551:fields in
545:archiveurl
528:templates.
457:suggestion
197:MOS:NOVELS
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
496:Reception
488:Reception
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
865:Snuggums
830:Snuggums
825:SSTflyer
491:caveats.
453:optional
444:consider
433:optional
293:SSTflyer
240:WP:UNDUE
183:Thanks.
157:contribs
76:Criteria
481:WP:LEAD
244:WP:NPOV
238:due to
127:history
108:history
94:Article
800:WP:CIT
716:WP:TNT
581:Themes
577:Bronte
565:Themes
553:WP:CIT
526:WP:CIT
522:WP:CIT
455:and a
441:, and
877:edits
842:edits
657:below
653:NOTE:
573:Genre
569:Genre
543:with
423:below
419:NOTE:
136:Watch
16:<
871:talk
855:sst✈
836:talk
821:Cirt
810:talk
805:Cirt
794:and
775:sst✈
761:talk
756:Cirt
747:Erik
721:sst✈
707:sst✈
696:sst✈
680:talk
675:Cirt
591:and
547:and
513:Per
479:Per
385:talk
380:Cirt
358:Cirt
334:talk
329:Cirt
305:talk
300:Cirt
282:talk
277:Cirt
242:and
226:talk
221:Cirt
174:talk
169:Cirt
151:talk
147:Cirt
123:edit
100:edit
786:by
567:or
539:by
365:sst
315:sst
256:sst
201:sst
185:sst
880:)
874:/
845:)
839:/
823:,
812:)
763:)
682:)
404::
387:)
336:)
307:)
284:)
228:)
176:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
868:(
833:(
808:(
759:(
678:(
603:.
383:(
368:✈
360::
356:@
332:(
318:✈
303:(
295::
291:@
280:(
259:✈
224:(
204:✈
188:✈
172:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.