Talk:Winter Kept Us Warm/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 07:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jon698: Thank you for nominating this article for GA! I’ll try, but I’m sure this will pass as a good article. I’ll add comments as I read the article and check the sources. You can also add more sources on the way! There are some newspaper sources on the talk page, but I’m not sure how we can use them right now. It’s been months since my last GA review, so nominator and other editors are welcome to comment.

@RFNirmala: A ping to notify you of my edits. Jon698 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jon698 Most of the criteria should easily pass. As I mentioned, the references can verify what’s in the article, but I can let the Dupuis citations pass through in good faith (still waiting in WP:RX). Following WP:CRS is optional for GAN, though a thematic organization of the reception points can help improve the article more to FAC. May I know if you’re working on revising the reception? If not, I can pass this in a while. RFNirmala (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• What date format would you like for the article? It uses both mdy and dmy – I suggest a consistent one.

Done in this edit

• Is the article referring to Canadian dollars or US dollars? To follow MOS:CURRENCY, we can mention/wikilink the first instance of money per section or once in the article prose.

Done in this edit

• I’m good with the lead being brief in itself – it mentions its being the first Canadian English-language film shown at Cannes and the fact that it’s low-budget. Would it be possible to mention its being a gay film?

Added something in this edit

• This is optional, but may you rewrite the Reception section thematically? I suggest WP:CRS

• Passes copyvio detector
• Couldn’t verify the film being screened at International Film Festival of Ottawa from the inline citations

Done in this edit

• Is The Varsity that had the casting ad the same as The Varsity Secter wrote for? You can add or move the wikilink earlier.

Done in this edit

• Is it OK if you can clarify whether George Appelby and George Appleby are the same person?

That was a typo on my part. I fixed it in this edit

• Ref spot checks are good. I’m currently waiting for the 2024 book by Dupuis at WP:RX.

• Who is Eric Rump and Ron Thomson? You may any brief description – are they related to Secter? I saw them being listed in the Turner book as actors, though we can check other sources.

Eric Rump is just the guy whose room they met in. I can remove it if you want. Ron Thomson was the executive producer and has an anecdote about attendance. The Chris Dupuis did not cover anything else about them.

I’ll let you either remove the Eric Rump or mention a brief description about him. I’m good with the Thomson point.

• Ongoing, but I can pass this.

• Ongoing, but I can easily pass this.

I changed the source for the poster to its imdb page. Jon698 (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Appropriate captions and use of pictures, passing 6b. Concern above still needs fixing for 6a. Passed criteria #6

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·