# Talk:Of Vice and Men

This review is transcluded from Talk:Of Vice and Men/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 15, 2015, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
Copyvio tool at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Of+Vice+and+Men&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 shows two issues -- please trim and/or remove quotes and/or paraphrase quotations so that all those at that link are below thirty (30) percent. Will recheck back here upon revisit of GA Review to make sure this is the case later.
Please change Synopsis to Plot synopsis.
Lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD at the moment, a bit too short. I would say each paragraph should have a least four sentences, and probably at least two to three good fleshed out paragraphs for the lede intro sect.
2. Verifiable?: There's so few citations used that it should be a breeze to use Wayback Machine by Internet Archive to archive all hyperlinks in the article with citation fields archivedate and archiveurl.
3. Broad in coverage?: Production seems a bit skimpy. This episode is from 2006. Any chance to expand Production sect with DVD commentary please?
4. Neutral point of view?: Concerns here due to inadequate summary of Reception info in lede -- and I do note there was some mixed and negative Reception.
5. Stable? No issues here. I inspected both the article edit history and talk page history. Article stable since August 2015.
6. Images?: One image, hosted on Wikimedia Commons, I performed an image review there and image checks out okay. No issues here.
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna:Let me know, here, if you've got a status update on this one. If I see some significant positive progress being made with regards to recommendations, above, we can keep the review open a tad bit longer. — Cirt (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: Hi, I have responded to some comments. Rest later today. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, no worries, sounds good. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I believe that I have fixed everything, including trimming the quotes, expanding the lead, and incorporating more information from the DVD notes into the Production section, along with archiving a few links and responding to the other comments. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


### Reevaluation by GA Reviewer
Copyvio Detector shows much better result, good job here !
External links checker - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Of_Vice_and_Men - seven (7) links could be archived please, as it's a shorter task to do here, with to use Wayback Machine by Internet Archive to archive all hyperlinks in the article with citation fields archivedate and archiveurl.
Have you considered suggestion 3, above, just as an option only, to consider, as a way to pay it forward ?
Lede intro sect looks much better, great job here.
Production sect looks better, good job here too.
Plot --> changed to Plot synopsis, thank you.
Only a couple minor points remaining to address, above, then I think we're all set. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Done with all the links. Once again, I'm pretty sure this is just standard for you, but I'm pretty sure we've been over suggestion 3. Thanks for the review. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 17:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


### Passed as GA
Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for the polite and courteous responsiveness to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)