Talk:Caligula (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The lad searches the night for his newts (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meets all criteria. Well written, verifiable, broad, neutral, no edit wars and illustrated. Passed. --The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this review as I do not believe the previous attempt was appropriate

Lead

There are a lot of citations in the lead. Generally, inline citations don't appear there because the lead is supposed to duplicate what's in the body. I would check over these carefully and confirm which ones are required. See WP:LEADCITE
The second and third sentences could be merged for clarity
"The film's release was controversial" - according to whom?

Production

"had long been involved in film production" .. "had never produced a film on its own" - so what did they do with films?
Do we know specifically why Guccione chose Calugiula as the subject matter? Were there any other possibilities considered.
Book sources generally need author, publisher, page number and ISBN (provided each one of these exists)
Why was Lina Wertmüller's script rejected?
Is it worth briefly explaining who the Penthouse Pets are? A cursory look at it might suggest they were kittens and goldfish ;-)
"Shooting began in 1976 in Rome.[17] Malcolm McDowell" - per WP:LASTNAME should simply be "McDowell"
"Brass decided not to focus much on Danilo Donati's elaborate sets", again WP:LASTNAME, should be "Donati"

Reception

What makes colsesmithey.com and cinepasson.org reliable sources?

To put it as mildly as possible, this isn't my specialist subject (I've contributed to asexuality and that's all I'm saying), but I'm happy to carry on reviewing it per my usual set of standards if you'd like. We should end up with a higher quality article at the other end. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a combination of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, I am closing this review as the nominator has not responded. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New GA Review

I am reopening this review as I do not believe the previous attempt was appropriate. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe the review was appropriate, list the article at WP:GAR and inform User:Ritchie333. Thanks. Seattle (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review wasn't appropriate. Stop making bad judgment calls. The nomination hasn't been properly reviewed, so it should stay on the page.The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the GAN from the talk page, as it will create a false-positive making the bot think that the nomination has failed, when it actually hasn't. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]