Talk:For Her Sake (1911 film)/GA1: Difference between revisions
→On hold: re |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
===On hold=== |
===On hold=== |
||
As it's very understandable that information is scarce for a 104 year old lost film, this article is at 30k (651 words) of readable prose too short to promote. Again, the major concern here is that there are only '''two''' references! I can't promote an article with this little, so addition of more sources would be great. Are there any more secondary sources that were used for previous Thanhouser articles suitable for this one? For an article this size, a bare minimum of five sources would suffice. I'll have to leave this on hold until more content/sources are added. Other than that, I recognise it's a short review. {{icon|GAH}} |
As it's very understandable that information is scarce for a 104 year old lost film, this article is at 30k (651 words) of readable prose too short to promote. Again, the major concern here is that there are only '''two''' references! I can't promote an article with this little, so addition of more sources would be great. Are there any more secondary sources that were used for previous Thanhouser articles suitable for this one? For an article this size, a bare minimum of five sources would suffice. I'll have to leave this on hold until more content/sources are added. Other than that, I recognise it's a short review. {{icon|GAH}} |
||
:: {{yo|Jaguar}} - going to dig some more up if I can. Going to need an extension. Other fixes done though. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:14, 28 September 2015
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll have this to you soon JAGUAR 22:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Initial comments
- The leads needs to be expanded slightly to summarise the article. There is nothing on what critics thought about the film in the lead
- "is a 1911 American silent short war romance film" - a lot of overlinking here. "Short" can be unlinked at least
- "His rival becomes a Union officer and are reunited when the Confederate is captured" - Confederate is captured sounds vague. Also, does it have to be capitalised or not?
- I would recommend splitting plot and production into two sections
- Can reception be expanded? Are there any more reviews out there?
On hold
As it's very understandable that information is scarce for a 104 year old lost film, this article is at 30k (651 words) of readable prose too short to promote. Again, the major concern here is that there are only two references! I can't promote an article with this little, so addition of more sources would be great. Are there any more secondary sources that were used for previous Thanhouser articles suitable for this one? For an article this size, a bare minimum of five sources would suffice. I'll have to leave this on hold until more content/sources are added. Other than that, I recognise it's a short review. 
- @Jaguar: - going to dig some more up if I can. Going to need an extension. Other fixes done though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)