Talk:Doctor Liza (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Doctor Liza (film) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 7, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| Doctor Liza (film) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 20, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Sources
Plot
Good Article GA Review
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Lisa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 15:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- 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.
- a (reference section):
- 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.
- a (major aspects):
- 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
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)
- awards section and the infobox do need verification to pass.
- 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.
Metro2fsb (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources added to the article from the Russian page
GA Review
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.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Doctor Lisa/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This is going to be a quickfail, as the good-faith and relevant comments at Talk:Doctor Lisa/GA1 were not addressed whatsoever prior to the renomination. The nominator is also now blocked indefinitely for being WP:NOTHERE. Should they manage to become unblocked, they can work on the article and renominate at a later time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)