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

Reviewer: Geometry guy 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous reassessment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/David Yates/1

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose needs work to keep the language encyclopedic. Close paraphrasing of source material was found during the review, as well as instances where the article suggested things which went beyond the source material.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead contains material on his personal life, which is not discussed in the article. The remaining issues I see here are both prose issues: use the narrative present for plot descriptions (this is really minor) and be careful with words to watch. For example adverbs are rarely appropriate in good encyclopedic writing.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I am not convinced by the reliability of some of the sources used. What makes the following sources reliable? quotelucy.com, collider.com, superiorpics.com, sugarcoveredquills.org, getsurrey.co.uk, casarotto.co.uk, comingsoon.net, swindonweb.com moviestation.org. Individual issues with sources have essentially been fixed, but I'm leaving this as a minus to highlight an overall problem with the large number of websources of variable quality which give me an overall "I found it on google" feeling about the article. Focusing on fewer, higher quality, sources, would improve the article.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All material in the article should faithfully reflect the source material, without closely paraphrasing it. As noted under 1a, examples of both issues (inaccurate reflection or close paraphrasing) were found during the review.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'm giving this a minus mainly because of the words to watch issue mentioned in 1b. It is certainly something to check before renomination and in subsequent review.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article thoroughly covers the main aspects now: good work!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Getting both 3a and 3b right is a key foundation to meeting the GA criteria, so I am confident that with better sourcing, this article can be brought to GA status.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is hard to judge, but the article seems slightly laudatory in tone: see also the comments about 1b and 2c.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	An article has to meet all of the criteria to pass, but I would pass an article where some of the failings are borderline or arguable. Here there were just too many small problems. I add further remarks below. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to close this nomination without checking that there are still reasons that this article does not meet the GA criteria, as that would be immediate grounds for community reassessment! My impression is that the main weaknesses (as found below) are in the "Film and TV projects" section. Here are a few more examples.

• The 2003 six-part thriller State of Play was Yates' next directorial achievement.

  The source has "Yates made his name directing television programs like the British hit “State of Play” and has received much acclaim for this television work". The words that need to be sourced are "2003", "six-part", "next" and "achievement". They don't all necessarily require an inline citation per the GA criteria, but this citation seems only to support the name of the program; it also partially supports the next sentence "acclaimed".

• The serial was recognised by various award ceremonies, notably receiving the Peabody Award...

  "Notably" is an example of an editorial adverb.

• The quality of the serial sparked Hollywood film bosses to consider adapting it into a film... Hauptman's Mission Pictures acquired the rights from Abbott and sold them to Universal Studios, but Yates had little say in the negotiations.

  The source supports a quote (omitted here), which is good: quotations need citations! But who says that the quality "sparked" bosses? That Yates had "little say"?

• Yates then moved on to helm more high-profile projects...a different approach in comparison to his immediate previous work.

  Apart from the fact that I don't like the prose ("moved on to helm"?), two comparisons are being made here. Are they sourced?

• The Young Visiters told the story of a bumbling man...

  I recommend using the narrative present here ("tells"): the movie still tells this story to viewers everywhere.

These problems may only need small fixes. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I want to end this review with an explanation for my decision not to list the article, nor extend the hold.

During a review, I believe reviewers should check whether an article meets all of the GA criteria. However, it is impossible to check every detail, as the time and effort to do so is comparable with (though of course less than) the combined efforts involved in writing the article in the first place! My approach (which I recommend) is to make a few checks: the GA criteria are not random, but are intended to help reviewers find problems.

In this case, I found problems, and it would have been reasonable of me to fail the nomination immediately for those reasons. However, I don't like failing nominations. So why am I failing it now?

Checking every sentence is not always helpful. I have only done so here because indicative checks found lots of problems. These are largely not the fault of the nominator, as previous editors to the article created them, hence they have been taken on trust. This is a danger implicit in assuming good faith: it is quite likely that another editor has done the same.

My main reason, however, for closing this review, is not that I set an ultimatum, and this ultimatum was not met. I am doing so because I believe that continuing this review damages the article. This does not contradict the fact that I believe the review has improved the article greatly!

In the areas discussed in this review, the article now has too many inline citations: this is not a reason to fail it per the GA criteria, but it does not make an article better to cite every possible source which might be relevant. This is my fault! Because of the concerns expressed here, the editor responded by providing citations for everything. If I continue raising specific concerns, then I will get specific responses. My comments above with regard to criterion 2 reflect this.

What is needed here, in my view, is for the nominator (and any other editors interested in this article) to go away and think hard about how they want to source this article, so that the writing comes naturally, rather than under pressure. Then it will be so much easier to cite sources, because it will be less necessary to do so. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article, with the assistance of Betty Logan, who has kindly offered to peer review the article below. Geometry guy 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to bear me, this is my first peer review outside of the snooker articles, so if I overlook anything then please point it out, or if I structure my comments incorrrectly please refactor them accordingly.

First of all this is a well-written article, flowing and consistent prose that takes you right through Yates' early career up to Harry Potter. The main issue with its de-listing was the lack of referencing and the reference formatting, and both issues have been fixed and are now of a high standard. The other issue was the images, but the images in use are all WikiCommons images with licences. In view of that it is well written, has balanced coverage, images are in order, and aside from the revamp which has seen it undergo some substantial changes it is stable. On the whole I think it meets the criteria for a GA listing. There are some minor issues I think that need to be cleared up, but it should only be a few minutes work:

• There is only one really questionable sourcing issue that stands in the way of GA status, and that's the "influences" field in the infobox; the names aren't referenced (apart from spielberg), so will need to be removed to satisfy the GA criteria. If they are going to be kept I recommend detailing them in the "career" section along with references, although it maybe be simpler just to temporarily pull them to get it through its GA test. The very last sentence of "Future Projects" needs a proper reference too. I don't know what "Collider" is, but it needs to verifiable.

• In the paragraph about "State of Play" there is a possible POV sentence: "Abbot sold the rights to Universal Studios, however Yates had little say in the matter as Abbot was the original creator of the serial. The film was released six years later." — It makes it sound negative, or that Yates disapproved of the decision. Maybe just better to say Yates was not involved in the decision or the later film.

Other recommendations, although I don't think they are a barrier to GA:

• The agency link in the infobox - infoboxes generally don't include external links anymore, unless they are clearly identified as external links. His agency is included in "external links" so I advise removing the linking here, or going red-link on it to encourage article creation.

• The paragraph starting "Half-Blood Prince became the second highest-grossing film of 2009..." in the Harry Potter section goes off-topic slightly. The problem is with the first two sentences, since I don't think biographical articles are the place for Rotten Tomato ratings, and unless Yates is an acknowledged contributor to the cinematography, the award probably isn't relevant to David Yates' career. This obviously is a preference issue, so the reviewer shouldn't take this point as a reason for not awarding GA.

• The wording in the Notes section could be improved. Saying that certain awards are "required" to be listed makes the article read a bit like school assignment, so I'd get rid of the second note and just mention in the first note that only major awards are listed.

There were several editors involved in de-listing the article originally: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/David_Yates/1. It may be wise to invite these editors to the review to ensure that their main concens have been addressed. If they haven't and they discover GA status has been restored they will just de-list it again, so it's best to sort out all of the problems at this stage. Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is an excellent review. It is a very good idea to contact the editors concerned and I have done so: although such experienced editors wouldn't "just delist", they may have useful comments to make, so that the article completely nails the criteria rather than being a marginal pass. Geometry guy 20:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two other things. First, one of the concerns raised in the GAR was an over-focus on Harry Potter: above you note that the article is now balanced. Do you, and any others commenting here, agree that this is no longer an issue? Secondly, I would value views on the quotebox in the filmography section, which is a little unusual in my experience. Geometry guy 20:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the concerns about the balance, and when I saw that half the career section was focused on the Potter films I was slightly concerned this was going to be Harry Potter lip-service. However, thinking about it, his career really has been a career of two halves. You have his early rise to acclaimed TV director and then the Potter gig, and I think the article reflects that aspect of his career. I don't see much point in minimising the Potter content or giving more coverage than is necessary to his early career to create an 'appearance' of balance. I think the balance will be self-rectifying, since the Potter films are all but over now, so maybe ten years down the line there will be a "post Potter career" section, and then the Harry Potter coverage won't be so dominant. As for the quote boxes, I didn't really know how relevant they were to the review so decided not to consider them. Some editors detest them because they have a sort of magazine "look", but that said I don't think they necessarily detract from the quality of the article; they could even be viewed as a convenient means of using up white space next to large tables, so I can take or leave them. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few 'minor' concerns you have brought up. Shall I rectify them now? Hallows Horcruxes 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! Geometry guy 20:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the points that may stop the article for entering GA status. Hallows Horcruxes 21:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spotted a Youtube link as a source and I have removed it before it becomes a concern. Hallows Horcruxes 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one of your recents edits you've lost some of your citations, currently numbered 37–42. Betty Logan (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorting it out. Hallows Horcruxes 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm off to bed and hopefully I'll feel fresh for tomorrow and I'll be able to correct anymore issues you have. Hallows Horcruxes 22:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a surface read the article looks a lot better, and my original concerns are addressed, so if it passes in the end that's fine by me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected Betty Logan's issue about the Half-Blood Prince paragraph holding information not related directly to Yates. Hallows Horcruxes 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my contributions are worthwhile. :) I'm off to bed. If there are any more issues, then I am willing to correct them (or you can). Hallows Horcruxes 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine now the main issues have been addressed, and the editors who de-listed it haven't objected. It has my blessing for GA but I will stand by whatever decision Geometry guy makes. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the article on hold to allow time for fixes to be made. There is nothing major, but the first issue to be addressed is the reliability of some of the sources. Some may be reliably enough for the claims they support, but this needs to be justified, or better sources found, or material removed. Geometry guy 00:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your concern about the lead containing info on his personal life and that it's "not discussed in the article". There is nothing to discuss and nowhere else to place the information; the only information we have of his personal life is in the "Early life" section and the information in the lead does not fit there. "getsurrey.co.uk" is a reliable source as its a local media site powered by local newspapers in the Surrey area. "Casarotto" is a reliable source as it is the official creative agency that represents Yates, including reporting his career achievements (in this case, Deathly Hallows' success). Collider.com is a reliable source as it is a film news website. It also conducts various interviews with filmmakers and casts, including the interview with David Heyman. I removed some sources which I think are unrealiable, like "sugarcoveredquills", "sueperiorpics" and "quotelucy.com". Hallows Horcruxes 12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The last two quotes in the quotebox are now reliably sourced to the observer article; how about the first? Geometry guy 23:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source for that. I'll get rid of it. Hallows Horcruxes 09:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I cut the "celebrated director" part as the information was not faithfully reflected in the source. To replace it, I added in a new detail which flows with the rest of the opening. In the near future, I'll put "His other works include" to follow up the first paragraph for it not to be too Harry Potter-heavy, therefore creating a balanced lead (which it is now, but even more so when post-Potter projects begin to surface.) Hallows Horcruxes 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is an improvement.

Unfortunately I am still finding examples of close paraphrasing. In particular, the first section of the body may be a copyvio, introduced here, in August 2010. I found it while checking prose issues, detailed below: the section doesn't use [11] any more, and barely uses [12], but is a close copy of [1]. The linked essay, WP:PARAPHRASE, provides good advice on avoiding and fixing such problems. I strongly recommend using more reliable and multiple sources for detailed biographical material like this. Yahoo Movies is not the way to go. Geometry guy 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your issues regarding the prose to the best of my ability. I have also found reliable sources along the way and I found the removed quote in the reliable source (Film London), so I added it back into the quote box, killing two birds with one stone as they say! Hallows Horcruxes 10:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comingsoon.net is a reliable source as it is a website devoted to films, reporting official interviews/trailers/cast and crew information etc... It's owned by the media company CraveOnline. Swindonweb.com is a reliable source as it is a local website that reports and showcases local subjects, issues and events. In this case, the site held an interview with Yates in which he spoke about Cr8 Studios, a local studio complex. Hallows Horcruxes 13:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you sourced the third quote in the quote box, as it is an interesting one.

Regarding "comingsoon.net", a male-oriented film website is not a good source for personal biographical details. I also do not see why being a "local website" suddenly makes swindonweb.com a reliable source on David Yates. I don't even see evidence of an interview in the "Behind the camera" piece, and this is the only quote it contains, unsourced. Please provide further information if I am missing something. Geometry guy 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Warner Brothers reference to the first section may be a copy of the tribute.ca reference or vice versa. Can you check? Geometry guy 21:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But ComingSoon actually held an interview with Yates at the press junket in London. They state "Continuing ComingSoon.net's series of interviews from the London junket of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1, we now have director David Yates, who is surprisingly still alive after finishing his third "Harry Potter" movie in a row and even more surprising, he was coherent enough to do these roundtable interviews despite being at the premiere the night before." It's a legitimate website and it's a valid interview, so I think it is a reliable source and backs up the part where Yates himself says he doesn't "have children". But I see your point regarding SwindonWeb and I'll remove the quote straight away. Yes, I'll check. Hallows Horcruxes 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point about ComingSoon is why rely on such a source simply for the information that Yates has no children with his wife? If there are no better sources, why is it notable information? Geometry guy 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the source if you think it's not notable. But, in my opinion, this is a bio article which covers all aspects of Yates' life and we have a source that backs up this certain piece of information, therefore it should have a right to stay. But, you are the reviewer and if this article stands any chance of getting GA status then the detail will have to go. Also, why are there red "Fail" icons in the review box? Hallows Horcruxes 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much against "my way or the highway" reviewing: if you think this material should be in the article, and that this is the best way to source it, then you should stick to that. I don't consider this issue on its own to be grounds for failing the nomination.

The reason for the "fail" icons is that I am now minded to fail the nomination, with regret, because GAN is not intended to provide peer review with an indefinite time limit. During the hold period, close paraphrasing (including possible copyvios) and unreliable sources have been identified. It is standard to fail a nomination for such reasons: nominations should be presented for review in a better state. However, I prefer to encourage article improvement as far as possible. There are limits, though: it is not the job of the reviewer to identify every single problem; indicative examples suffice. I have indicated problems and will advise on any queries you have. I may also try to copyedit the rest of the article. However, I will stick to the nominal hold period of 7 days, and fail the nomination if it does not meet all of the GA criteria by 00:10 on 16 March (UTC). Geometry guy 23:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have gone through all the references (with great effort) and it seems that the 'close paraphrasing' has been sorted. The only one left is in The Young Visiters paragraph, which I shall confront later. Your concerns about the references can be striked off, as there are no "comingsoon.net" or "swindonweb.com" on the article anymore. There is also no original research. The information is backed up with sources littered throughout the article and, from what I can see, the article is quite balanced (in structure) and neutral. I can't see a reason why it should fail, now. But I'll leave it up to you. Hallows Horcruxes 08:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was. I removed the "tribute.ca" source and kept the Warner Bros. Hallows Horcruxes 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the copying was that way around? (I haven't checked.)

Anyway, can you explain how the first two paragraphs of "Film and TV projects" are now sourced? Is it all in refs 1, 15, 16? Geometry guy 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the first two paragraphs is contained within sources 1, 15 and 16. Hallows Horcruxes 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See below. Geometry guy 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• His first two Potter films (Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince) became the highest-grossing entries in the series post the first instalment, which was finally out-grossed internationally by Yates' two-part Deathly Hallows...

  "post" is awkward ("after"? "since"? "apart from"?), as is "out-grossed" (suggesting "grossed out"!); "finally" editorializes and there is a slight inaccuracy/understatement, in that part 1 of Deathly Hallows already broke the record for the series; also "became" makes the sentence slightly too in the moment. I would copyedit, but maybe a complete rewrite would be better. Geometry guy 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yates often adopted the use of hand-held cameras to provoke the subject matter; the technique became one of his directorial trademarks and can be noted in his later projects.

  I would copyedit this (e.g., "adopted the use of" -> "used"), but I don't know what is meant by "provoke", and "directorial trademarks" is not particularly well-sourced (filmdates.co.uk is simply quoting IMDB). Geometry guy 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A directorial trademark is a signature style used by a director. By using the hand-held camera in a certain way, one provokes the subject matter, eg. if a scene contains someone running down a street, and the director adopts the use of hand-held cameras to film said scene, then this would mean the camera is provoking the subject as it is creating a "shaky" effect that enhances the tension of the scene. It's mentioned to an extent in this article. Hallows Horcruxes 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First section

• From an early age he was fascinated with the works of film directors, with Steven Spielberg’s 1975 film Jaws and Christian Nyby’s 1951 film The Thing from Another World being two favourites in particular.

  The source [1] has: "From an early age, he was... fascinated by the movies of ambitious film directors..., with Spielberg’s “Jaws” (1974) and Christian Nyby’s “The Thing From Another World” (1951) two favorites in particular." This is a somewhat close paraphrase, and Yahoo Movies seems to me a less than ideal source for this level of detail anyway.

• Yates went to see Jaws in the cinema, where at least a dozen of his subsequent 35 viewings took place.

  I don't understand this sentence. Viewings of what? Jaws? Films? Properties :) ? And where: in a particular cinema or just a cinema? Where did the other viewings take place? The source [1] has "Yates went to see “Jaws” in the theater, where at least a dozen of his subsequent 35 viewings took place." so this is again a close paraphrase.

• "He attempted to understand the production and story elements of motion pictures, observing the characterization, pacing and suspense and with each viewing, surveying the reactions of the audience."

  The source [1] has Yates attempted to gleam insights into the production and story elements, observing the characterization, pacing and suspense and with each viewing, surveying the reactions of the audience. Apart from rewording the unencyclopedic "gleam", this is another close paraphrase, in the same order as the material in the source.

• He began pulling friends and family into the cast of short films at the age of fourteen, using a camera his mother had given him.

  The source [1] has "He began pulling friends and family into the cast of short films at the age of 14, using a camera his mother had given him." so this is straight copying. The source also has "Copyright © 2011 AEC One Stop Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Portions of this page Copyright © 2011 Baseline. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2011 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.": hence this close paraphrasing, as well as being unencyclopedic writing, may be violating the copyright of up to three organizations.

• Yates then followed up on a more academic track, taking up the subjects of sociology, political studies, and literature at St Helens College before moving onto the University of Essex and Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

  The source [1] has "Yates followed up on a more academic track, taking up the subjects of sociology, political studies, and literature at St Helens College before moving onto the University of Essex." so this continues the copyvio in the same order as the material in the source, including the ungrammatical use of "onto". Geometry guy 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film and TV projects

• In the 1980s, Yates worked as a facilitator for Cre8 Studios in Swindon, whose services aided him in making his first serious film, When I Was a Girl. The short film, which was shot in Swindon town under a grant from Thamesdown Arts, made the festival circuit where it was named Best Short Film at the San Francisco International Film Festival, in addition to other awards. It also contributed to Yates' acceptance into the National Film and Television School in Beaconsfield, where he studied under its directing program, and marked his entry into the UK’s entertainment industry, with the BBC hiring him to make the short drama Oranges and Lemons in 1991.

  Cited source [1] has: "I made a short film, for a few thousand pounds, with grants from Southern Arts and the BBC bought it, because it won various awards at Film Festivals. On the back of that I got offered my first professional directing gig, doing a short called Oranges and Lemons, again for the BBC."

  Uncited source [10] has: "Living in Swindon in the late 1980s, Yates became a freelancer for Create Studios, whose facilities helped him make his first serious film, the short “When I Was a Girl” (1988) – also aided along through grant funding from Southern Arts. The short... later made the festival circuit and helped with his acceptance into the National Film and Television School in Beaconsfield, where he studied under its directing program. “When I Was a Girl” also marked Yates’ entry into the UK’s entertainment industry, as his skilled handling of the material won him an audience with BBC, which... hired him to make the dramatic short “Oranges and Lemons” (1991)."

• He began to direct, produce and write the screenplay to the dramatic short The Weaver's Wife before graduating from the NFTS in 1992. His next works included his fourth short film Good Looks, which was presented at the Chicago International Film Festival, and an episode of the film studies programme Moving Pictures, which oversaw low-budget filmmaking in Britain.

  I cannot find mention of either of these films in the sources supplied. Nor, from the next paragraph, do I find mention of "Tale of Three Seaside Towns" or "Punch" in the sources. This is apparently sourced to a summary of "The Tichborne Claimant" at moviestation.org, which is only good for the location of that movie, as far as I can tell. Geometry guy 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Hallows Horcruxes 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "sorted" does not coincide with mine. You have added sources which support the fact that these films exist and that Honor Blackman appeared in "Tale of Three Seaside Towns" and you have made small improvements to the paraphrasing. I have restored the citation to Yahoo: I found no reference to Cre8/Create in the other sources, and this was original source for much of the material anyway. Both Yahoo and filmlondon refer to "Southern Arts" rather than "Thamesdown Arts" and I find no reference to the latter outside swindonweb and IMDB. Geometry guy 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference and changed Thamesdown Arts to Southern Arts. I know this article stands little to no chance of getting GA status now, but it has improved considerably with your help. Thanks. Hallows Horcruxes 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I will likely not list this nomination, although I won't have time to make the final decision tonight. However, your comment here, including the expression of thanks is much appreciated. From the above, you may not be surprised that I have felt misled and frustrated in having to drag out each correction almost like blood from a stone. I also agree that the article has improved a lot, and this is what really matters.

A basic step in getting an article to GA is to assume it has flaws and that the reviewer is your ally in finding and fixing them. If you have learned that here, then even if GA does not yet gain another article, it may have gained a better nominator.

If I don't list this nomination, I promise that if you renominate it in better shape, I will review it promptly for you and help you bring it up to GA standard. Of course, you may prefer to try your luck with another reviewer and I won't be offended if you do that. However, when part 2 hits the screens, this article may get a lot of hits: I hope you will want readers to admire it; if so, you may appreciate a review that does not simply check that the article superficially looks okay. I can provide such a review, as I have done here; many other GA reviewers can do likewise: just make it clear in your nomination that you want details checked, and that you want the article to shine. Geometry guy 23:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following this discussion and feel partly responsible. The truth is I didn't really know what I was looking for but I can clearly see where the problems are now so I will assist Hallows in getting it ship shape. Betty Logan (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That is good news for the article and hence also Wikipedia! Please forgive my slowness in closing this review. I don't like "failing" nominations and want to ensure I conclude the review as fairly as possible, and with helpful advice for the future. Geometry guy 22:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the best thing to do would be to close the review, and if Hallows wants to persist in getting it up to scratch he can drop me a note on my talk page (that's if he wants my help, although if he doesn't he should get someone else who can objectively apply the points of the review). What we really need to do is go through each section, making sure the content matches up with what the source actually states, and rephrase any potential copy vios, and then resubmit the article in a month's time. Really there is only one particular type of problem here and I think it's relatively straightforward to fix. Betty Logan (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I largely agree, but see my closing comments above. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]