548:
passionate about this project than most editors I know, myself included. However, I think you rush into doing GA reviews. That much work, while capable of being done, should not have to be done. Ideally, GA nominations are presented when the article is at least very close to GA, but this article is not. I'm willing to help you along the way, but I stand by my recommendation of taking it to GOCE (I don't mean that in a mean way, I just think it would help) and the fact that the article has a lot of problems. GAN is not meant to improve an article up to GA; that's what peer reviews are for. I'm harsh because I feel I have to be. I can't judge your articles differently just because I like you and I think you're a good editor.
499:, I get this a lot, you're not first one. You see I'm not a native of English, so I've a little bit problem with the grammar and some other things in writing. But I'm always good in getting information and putting it all together. And don't mind but you're like hard on me, always, or it's just I feel. Now here, why would you say like "this article is teetering on a quickfail as it stands" and "I would suggest taking this to WP:GOCE before nominating it again?" And you can help me during the review with some sentences and prose, like other reviewers did with my other nominations. See below
351:
190:
177:
358:
favour of explaining specific gags, such as giving him breasts. Also, some information is just offhandedly tacked on to the end of completely unrelated sentences ("Through their pranks, they discover that Mark has been embezzling from various companies at his workplace and Carly begins to connect romantically with Kate's brother Phil"). Those two pieces of information do not belong in the same sentence.
454:
438:
413:
386:
371:
339:
314:
231:
472:
of my "no"s were in writing-related fields, with the exception of me having a few problems with some references and information. I'm going to put the article on hold for one week, and I would highly suggest you try GOCE or asking an editor to look over your work. Great information as always, and I couldn't admire your effort any more than I already do, but we've still got a good bit to go.
326:
297:
267:
254:
42:
466:
582:
It's okay Sock, I'm really glad you understand me. And I'm also sorry for being rude, directly. I can see mostly issues are pass here, you see the "Dallas Buyers Club" nom, which Tony reviewed, mostly issues were fail in the start there. But we, together did that. So you shouldn't discourage anyone,
471:
Cap, I'm going to level with you. I really think you need to try to find someone willing to collaborate with you and work on copyediting your articles. Your content is all very well-researched and thorough, but the writing in this article is a long way from where it needs to be. As you can see, most
559:
situation. I was unable to find the time to watch the film and help with the plot section, and I apologize for not being more proactive in finding someone who could've helped. I blundered there, and I'm sorry for that. I have some more free time now, so I'll try to get my hands on the film and give
357:
The plot section, though short, is far too detailed in many places. For instance, why is "(Carly refuses to call Amber "Mom")" essential to the plot? Then, things like what initially happens after Carly and Kate meet are glossed over. Things that are important to the plot go a bit to the wayside in
551:
I can't make a list of everything that was issuous right now, but I will do my best to do so today or tomorrow. I will not fail the article until I've held up my end, so don't worry about the one week still applying if I fail to do what I'm saying I will. I hope I'm not creating any animosity, and
547:
Cap, I'm not hard on you for personal reasons at all. I would be just as hard on any editor. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just informing you of my honest opinion. You seem to think I have it out for you, and I absolutely do not. I couldn't respect you more as an editor, you're considerably more
196:
Grammar issues litter the article, ranging from incomplete sentences ("Trio group together to take revenge from him") to nonsensical ("But studio wanted to get PG-13, because according to Box Office Mojo, the R-rated movies ever released, all could gross averaged just $ 7.8 million"). The lead,
528:, when I was going to nominate it. Why dido I feel uncomfortable when I saw you are the reviewer, and why do I feel like this nomination is not gonna pass? Please don't mind my talking at all, just be a good reviewer and helped me in this. I'm not good in English but I'm trying. --
670:
It has now been over a week since my reply with detailed explanation as to what needs to happen, and nearly three weeks since I placed this article on hold. I've been lenient, but I will have to fail the nomination if you don't respond by tomorrow.
303:"Film Music Reporter" (ref #1) doesn't have any establishment of reliability, and the website looks like an amateur blog. SNN Insider (ref #14) is used to state the start and end dates of principal photography, but only includes the start date.
511:, in this reviewer also helped a lot by pointing out all issues. And later we took the article to GOCE and requested for a copy-edit, because we both (nominator and reviewer) were not English-lang native. That's how we got the article to GA.
166:
Well Cap, I have to be honest with you, this article is teetering on a quickfail as it stands. There are parts that are good, but much of the writing and grammar is in need of a whole lot of work. Here's my review:
237:
Small thing: review sections almost never need quote boxes, and this film most certainly doesn't. If anything, a quote box would be used to summarize opinion on the film overall, not for specific reviews.
47:
294:, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
291:
126:
122:
184:
222:
107:
80:
52:
697:, it's been 24 hours since my previous comment and nine days since my thorough review, and I still haven't seen any further changes. Unfortunately, I'll have to
99:
70:
428:
226:
218:
641:
Overall, we're pretty close. I hope you think my changes improved the article, and get back to me whenever you can. Sorry that this took so long!
197:
production, and release sections are by far the biggest offenders here, but it really is throughout the article. I would suggest taking this to
508:
210:
517:, here again the reviewer helped me by pointing out the prose and sentences. Addressing all issues, like which is wrong and how to correct it.
272:
Every source's publisher is listed as the website name, rather than the name of the actual source. For instance, "nytimes.com" should be
619:
278:, and in the "work" or "newspaper" section, depending on what template is used. This issue persists through almost all of the citations.
448:
214:
115:
17:
364:
75:
610:
All right, I got the time to go through section-by-section, so here is a full list of improvements. I've gone ahead and made
308:
420:
505:, in this reviewer helped me and I got the article from like-zero to GA. He helped me with details, grammar and prose.
502:
92:
432:
283:
156:
287:
206:
618:
The music section needs improved references, and preferably a collapsed track listing (look at something like
514:
424:
345:
243:
628:
Need a source for it being a box office success, or that information needs to be removed. Just state facts.
694:
665:
605:
584:
529:
380:
333:
705:
and let one of their editors go through it in-depth, and work out some of the issues I've listed here.
583:
not just me, not anyone. You should start a review with passing possibilities in mind not failing. --
444:
274:
722:
688:
658:
593:
577:
538:
525:
489:
160:
403:
399:
260:
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
407:
368:: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
713:
702:
679:
649:
568:
480:
261:
198:
150:
552:
I'm sorry that it makes you uncomfortable when I review your articles. I'm just harsh.
706:
672:
642:
561:
496:
473:
146:
379:: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
344:
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
634:
Betsy
Sharkey's review doesn't have any real clarity on her opinion
701:
this article, as this nomination is stale. Please submit it to
631:
Quotes should be integrated to reception, not in quote boxes.
614:
as well, but there are a few things I'll need your help on.
625:
The end of filming date (August 29, I think) is unsourced.
524:
Why don't you? You already failed and discouraged me with
560:
the plot section a rework. No promises, but I will try.
637:
Separating negative reviews from positive would be good
611:
134:
103:
185:understandable to an appropriately broad audience
620:The Wolf of Wall Street (2013 film)#Soundtrack
8:
30:
61:
33:
555:Last thing: I apologize for the whole
509:Talk:The Fault in Our Stars (film)/GA1
7:
187:; spelling and grammar are correct:
24:
183:the prose is clear, concise, and
464:
452:
436:
411:
384:
369:
349:
337:
324:
312:
295:
265:
252:
229:
188:
175:
18:Talk:The Other Woman (2014 film)
622:for an example of what I mean).
465:
325:
296:
266:
253:
292:could reasonably be challenged
1:
723:14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
689:13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
659:17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
594:19:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
578:17:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
539:16:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
490:13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
429:valid non-free use rationales
161:13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
453:
437:
412:
385:
370:
350:
338:
313:
230:
189:
176:
503:Talk:Dallas Buyers Club/GA1
201:before nominating it again.
738:
262:the layout style guideline
515:Talk:Gravity (film)/GA2
447:to the topic, and have
321:Broad in its coverage
205:it complies with the
383:or content dispute:
309:no original research
249:no original research
290:. All content that
425:copyright statuses
394:, if possible, by
275:The New York Times
227:list incorporation
695:Captain Assassin!
666:Captain Assassin!
606:Captain Assassin!
588:Captain Assassin!
533:Captain Assassin!
526:Ride Along (film)
449:suitable captions
431:are provided for
332:it addresses the
89:
88:
729:
720:
711:
686:
677:
669:
656:
647:
612:a lot of changes
609:
591:
575:
566:
536:
487:
478:
468:
467:
456:
455:
440:
439:
433:non-free content
415:
414:
388:
387:
373:
372:
353:
352:
341:
340:
328:
327:
316:
315:
299:
298:
284:reliable sources
269:
268:
256:
255:
233:
232:
192:
191:
179:
178:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
737:
736:
732:
731:
730:
728:
727:
726:
714:
707:
680:
673:
663:
650:
643:
603:
585:
569:
562:
530:
481:
474:
209:guidelines for
207:Manual of Style
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
735:
733:
639:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
553:
549:
542:
541:
521:
520:
519:
518:
512:
506:
459:
458:
457:
441:
416:
389:
374:
361:
360:
359:
354:
342:
336:of the topic;
329:
318:
317:
305:
304:
300:
281:
280:
279:
257:
240:
239:
238:
234:
219:words to watch
203:
202:
193:
180:
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:
734:
725:
724:
721:
718:
712:
710:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
687:
684:
678:
676:
667:
661:
660:
657:
654:
648:
646:
636:
633:
630:
627:
624:
621:
617:
616:
615:
613:
607:
595:
592:
590:
589:
581:
580:
579:
576:
573:
567:
565:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
537:
535:
534:
527:
523:
522:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
500:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
485:
479:
477:
469:
463:
462:Pass or Fail:
450:
446:
442:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
417:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
382:
378:
375:
367:
366:
362:
356:
355:
347:
346:summary style
343:
335:
331:
330:
322:
319:
310:
306:
302:
301:
293:
289:
285:
282:
277:
276:
271:
270:
263:
259:
258:
250:
246:
245:
241:
236:
235:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:lead sections
208:
204:
200:
195:
194:
186:
182:
181:
173:
170:
169:
168:
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:
716:
708:
698:
692:
682:
674:
662:
652:
644:
640:
602:
587:
586:
571:
563:
556:
532:
531:
483:
475:
470:
461:
460:
395:
391:
376:
363:
334:main aspects
320:
307:it contains
288:cited inline
273:
248:
242:
172:Well-written
171:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
423:with their
392:Illustrated
104:visual edit
557:Ride Along
443:media are
419:media are
244:Verifiable
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
445:relevant
398:such as
381:edit war
157:contribs
76:Criteria
703:WP:GOCE
365:Neutral
223:fiction
199:WP:GOCE
127:history
108:history
94:Article
693:Well,
427:, and
421:tagged
400:images
377:Stable
225:, and
215:layout
719:talk)
685:talk)
655:talk)
574:talk)
495:Well
486:talk)
408:audio
406:, or
404:video
396:media
247:with
136:Watch
16:<
717:tock
709:Sock
699:fail
683:tock
675:Sock
653:tock
645:Sock
572:tock
564:Sock
497:Sock
484:tock
476:Sock
286:are
151:talk
147:Sock
123:edit
100:edit
451::
435::
410::
402:,
348:)
323::
311::
264:;
251::
221:,
217:,
213:,
174::
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
715:(
681:(
668::
664:@
651:(
608::
604:@
570:(
482:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.