Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Korkoro/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:14, 5 October 2011 [1].

Korkoro

Korkoro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Korkoro/archive1

Nominator(s): _morelMW^illiam 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korkoro has come a long way, with two peer reviews and a successful GAN, developing from a stub to a GA in the last 2 months. Would like to see this take the last lap. _morelMW^illiam 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Driveby comment: The stretchy pictures on File:Korkoro - Cast (CrozeLavoineThierree).jpg are not good. Much better for that kind of thing is the use of syntax/templates like Template:Multiple image. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I resorted to creating this image as I was not satisfied with the way multiple image template rendered the images. I changed the display resolution; it doesn't look stretchy now. _morelMW^illiam 13:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly does on my monitor- only one of the images is still in proportion. This really comes across as unprofessional, which is not what we want from a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I added the multiple images template. Check if that improved the images' quality. _morelMW^illiam

  Look sharper to me now. I moved the image up slightly on the page and added a {{clear}} template after the last paragraph it runs alongside, as it was warping the text of the next section a little in my browser - the proximity of the image and infobox templates were causing the text to overlap the edge of the soundtrack infobox. Fixed now, on my end at least. GRAPPLE X 03:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't aware of this {{clear}} template. Looks much better now. _morelMW^illiam 04:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first

• Fixed. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes this a high-quality
  reliable source? This? This
  ?

• The kinocritics source is no longer necessary as the facts it was being used to reference are already stated in other sources._morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hammer to Nail is a high quality source for this subject. It is prominent in the indi circuit. The site was co-founded by Ted Hope, one of the prominent figures in the domain. Its editors are notable enough to have pages in indieWire too. Another indi movie magazine, Filmmaker (magazine) quite often features Hammer to Nail reviews such as this. I was also able to find this review published in Film Independent's website, which presents the Independent Spirit Awards. It is also not so uncommon to find Hammer to Nail's comments listed in the press releases of movies along with mainstream magazines. Now, that makes Hammer to Nail wiki page worthy! _morelMW^illiam 12:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Patrin is widely recognised as a reliable source by the academics for Roma studies. With google, I was able to find lots of academic papers using Patrin as a source, such as this University of Arizona paper and this Oxford paper. Stanford university lists Patrin as a reliable source for information on ethnic conflicts. Lots of books on the Roma have used Patrin as a source. (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
  United Nations High Commission for Refugees recognises this as a reliable source. There have been articles on BBC and Natgeo too, using Patrin as a source. Was that convincing enough? _morelMW^illiam 13:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Removed the Box office mojo link. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Check references for typos

• Ran a spell check and fixed the errors. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't italicize publisher names or locations

• Fixed.

• be consistent in when you provide locations

• Magazines with location names in their titles and web citations don't have locations now._morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Make sure foreign-language sources are identified as such, but not English-language ones (for example, FN 17)

• Fixed. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Check formatting of quotes within quotes

• Fixed. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Check for consistency between similar sources - for example, "Le nouvel Observateur" or "Le Nouvel Observateur"?

• Fixed. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 36: page(s)?

• Page numbers are not necessary, as that reference serves to show its author and name, or its mere existence. _morelMW^illiam 12:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth supporting that ref with a WorldCat entry, such as this one. GRAPPLE X 12:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. _morelMW^illiam 15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by

• Comment - Hi. Throughout the article in sections like Themes and analysis, Reception and basically anywhere you mention a review or observation from a writer you've written things like "an observation that was supported by Le Devoir, which wrote that the film mixes humour, sensitivity and drama." But shouldn't that be "an observation that was supported by Odile Tremblay in Le Devoir, which wrote that the film mixes humour, sensitivity and drama"? For the reviews you ought to name the writer because it isn't the publication itself that has that view, it's just their film critic. For some reviews such as Hammer to Nail you already have this and it should be a pretty easy change to make. Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.