Talk:Doctor Liza (film)/GA1

Good Article GA Review

Unsuccessful. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Metro2fsb. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this nomination in accordance with the good article criteria. I'm fairly certain this article won't reach the standards, but an assessment will still follow below. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
There is nothing much to comment on in this regard. Some of the wording is stilted and doesn't flow well, but it is otherwise written in understandable English
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The plot and cast sections don't require citations, but the awards section and the infobox do need verification to pass. Some of the sources may not be reliable, such as those from Vzglyad and TASS, which are closely affiliated with the Russian state. IMDB is not a reliable source, as it is entirely user-generated. foundationa.org does not seem to be related to the film, so it should be removed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article does not cover major aspects of the film, such as its production, reception by critics, information about its release, etc.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There isn't much to comment on in regards to neturality, as the article only contains a plot section
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, this article is a long way from meeting some of the GA criteria, so I'll have to fail it. There is a lot of work to be done on this article, and if you want inspiration, I'd suggest looking at some other GA articles in the film section to see what they do right. I also suggest you familiarize yourself further with how Wikipedia articles are written and structured before you nominate any other articles. Here are some tips for improving an article to GA quality. If you do feel like you have improved the article significantly since this review, you can go ahead and renominate it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.