Talk:Rock of Ages (2012 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am going to review this article for GA status. I see no obvious/outright QuickFail issues. Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've only had time to do a few passes through the article but I think the tense of the verbs needs to be gone over.

   For instance, under "Soundtrack" there's this: It has sold 320,000 copies as of May 2013. That should probably be "had sold". Updated stats for the soundtrack would be a good thing if available. Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

   Actually if updated stats are available for any of the various parameters - continuing sales/streaming, soundtrack's most recent sales, if critics have changed their minds, has it now turned into a cult movie of some sort, etc - that would be helpful/interesting. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

    Done first. As for the second point, the film has generally faded from the mainstream. I don't think any continuing sales or streams will be of a high number, and from what I can tell it has not seen a cult resurgence. Rusted AutoParts 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

   Points taken. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Still looking at this...seems ok, but want to do another deep read to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

   Everything is looking good but I have a small quibble with the lead - the mention of the soundtrack going gold in Canada seems not as important as how well it did worldwide? Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

   Changed to reflect debuting on Billboard at no.1 Rusted AutoParts 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

   Since that is a higher number sales award it would seem to be more major/higher-visibility. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Yes, the references are all in agreement with each other. It is refreshing that so many of the refs have Archived links. Just a personal preference and not in the GA stuff but would it be possible to give all of them an archived/Wayback Machine link? The further away in time we get from the release year/date the more likely link rot will occur... Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Yes. Scrupulously sourced, well-done. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   At first, I wasn't sure the Plot & Cast sections didn't somehow need cited sources but then did some research and, yes, the film itself is the source. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvios/plagiarism found. Got a weird result on Earwig's copyvio tool but in my opinion that site - lookupsometimes(dot)com - is a mirror/not-secure/etc & can be safely disregarded. Shearonink (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes. What more is there to say? It covers the movie and its main aspects etc. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Yes. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Tells the movie's stories dispassionately - so, yes. Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Yay, no edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are tagged & described correctly. One small quibble...should the poster be described in its file description as a "Promotional teaser for upcoming film."? Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Relevant and appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   PASS:

   Pending 1A & 1B. Shearonink (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: addressed the points of concern. Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

   I am going to read through the article a few more times to make sure I haven't missed anything. Will update within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

   Everything else looks fine but there is a problem with Ref #58 - "Gold ANd Platinum Certifications Canada". musiccanada.com. musiccanada.com. January 15, 2013. Retrieved January 19, 2013. It is not rendering to a valid URL. Once that ref is fixed - Didn't know "Certification Table Entry" nomenclature at all before this Review - I will be able to pass the article to GA status. Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

   @Shearonink: I deleted it. Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

   Thank you and congrats. Shearonink (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)