Template:Did you know nominations/The Martian (film)

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 19:10, 24 July 2016 by imported>LlywelynII (note)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Martian (film)

Ridley Scott
Ridley Scott

Improved to Good Article status by Captain Assassin! (talk). Self-nominated at 12:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
    • Paragraphs [2] (After ... news.),[3] (After ... lives.) in this article lack a citation.
    • There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 39.0% confidence. (confirm)
    • Captain Assassin! has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review is required for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Submitted QPQ of "looks all good to me" is not acceptable. QPQ reviews must be complete and specify everything the reviewer checked. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Timely; certainly long enough, well-cited, and within policy; GAs which happen to have paragraphs which happen to lack citations are just proof that rule of thumb should never be used as an ironclad rule, not evidence that the article needs tweaking or rewriting; hook had grammar issue (fixt); hook rather boring but (more importantly) unsupported in the article (it's claimed in the lead without citation; the citation in the running text merely notes it was his highest domestic box office as of 2015); the pic is irrelevant to ALT1; ALT1 is pretty banal: it helps a space movie more than most movies, sure. It'd be nice if there were a better hook to work with, but (fwiw) it is supported. (Cleaned up grammar, though.)

    The bigger issue is that, no, the QPQ is not done. Whatever Template:Sc could be offered to such a lazy review is undone by the fact that the hook the editor approved mentioned the wrong countries and that the hook has nothing to do with the subject of the article being promoted. Certainly appreciate the good work and congratulations on the GA... just, y'know, go do another one and, y'know, this time take the time to actually do it. — LlywelynII 19:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)