Talk:Andrei Rublev (film)/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The entire Historical and Political Context section is suspect and does not read like a WP:GA should. It has WP:MOS violations and I suspect WP:OR, eg. the statement "Tarkovsky squandered massive funds in the making of the film" which contradicts the fact mentioned elsewhere in the article that the budget of the film was cut to 1 M roubles. Chengiz (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree and I deleted two sections. One section, Historical accuracy was almost completely unsourced and sounds somewhat speculative. The other section, "Historical and political context" has a few sources, but gives no indication of page numbers. It looks rather suspect to me given the contradictions, and given that it is rather interpretative. Deleting these two sections seems like the best way to keep the GA status. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- A bit of the information that you just removed was cited and relevant to the article. While a lot of it was original research, there would have been better ways to incorporate the material into the article than blanking it. A properly cited section on historical accuracy would be nice to have in this article, and I'd argue that discussion of the film's historical and political context would be necessary if the article were to ever see FA status. I've mentioned the blanking of these sections on the talkpage for reference by future article-builders. ThemFromSpace 06:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- What's the status of this article? It's been a Good Article review for months now! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- A bit of the information that you just removed was cited and relevant to the article. While a lot of it was original research, there would have been better ways to incorporate the material into the article than blanking it. A properly cited section on historical accuracy would be nice to have in this article, and I'd argue that discussion of the film's historical and political context would be necessary if the article were to ever see FA status. I've mentioned the blanking of these sections on the talkpage for reference by future article-builders. ThemFromSpace 06:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The original nominator has not been very active since he started this GA reassessment and has not made an edit for a few months now. I think the best thing to do now would be for a few editors to make a comment on whether they think the article meets the GA criteria or not then based on the consensus the article will either stay as a GA or be demoted. I think the article mainly fails criteria 3(a) (it addresses the main aspects of the topic) because it does not have enough information on the critical response to the film. - Kollision (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)