Talk:Home Alone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will conduct the review shortly. -- Matthew RD 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Well written: ✗ Fail.
Sources: ✗ Fail
Broadness in coverage: ✗ Fail. The article seems a little too short.
Neutral: From what I've seen, nothing is bias. ✓ Pass
Stability: Quite a lot or reversions, but only due to IP edits. No serious edit wars though. ✓ Pass
Images: One non-free image with appropriate tags and fair use rationale. I'm not sure about this image though, it does not have a proper fair use rationale.

Comments

The lead mentions Culkin won an award, but it isn't mentioned in the reception section. The lead section should summarise the full article.
The production section is short, as per the tag. All the production info is on the filming side. Isn't there anything on the casting? Writing? How the film was conceived?
3.5 bathrooms?
I think the reception could do with a few more reviews. This article lists six reviews, but according to Rotton Tomatoes there are 40. A few more can't hurt
There is an awful lot of content that is unsourced. I have editing in the citation needed tags on the end of each parapgraph that isn't referenced.
What's the publisher and author name of Ref #2?
Same with Ref #3
Quite a lot of the refs do not have the author's names (though some may not have them included in the page itself) or proper publishers.
Ref #13 is dead.

I'm afraid that's a fail. There are quite a few unsourced content and the production section is lacking. I also noticed that the nominator did not actually edit this article recently, which is not a good sign. After the comments are taken care of, take it to be peer reviewed again (last one was in 2008 and it was not a helpful one), then you may renominate it. -- Matthew RD 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]