Talk:Winter Spring Summer or Fall/GA2

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: M.Billoo2000 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Wait until tomorrow, I'll reply to you better then. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done the review, you just gotta do the changes I said and it'll be fine. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk · contribs) 08:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I am planning to review this page. I’ll take until the 22^nd of June or earlier. I will admit I haven’t watched the movie, although I was sort of planning to. Emphasis on was.

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.	Clear, concise, and no obviously visible errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.	Previous issues were fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	It uses the {{Reflist}} correctly.
	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 right.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Well-sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Through plagiarismdetector.net, I could see credit attributed to this very article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	When discussing online release, it only mentions Paramount(+), completely ignoring any other sites.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Concise and never out of scope.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No obvious bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Only minor, constructive edits.
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.	All tagged and valid.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.	Clearly shows and tells who the leading cast are and what they look like.
	7. Overall assessment.	It's got some issues that couldn't be solved by the nominator within the given time. I've tried to be bold sometimes, but I don't have the will to fix everything. Sorry, but it's not going to be GA-class quite yet. I will promote it to B-class though. Maybe next time!

GA review discussion

@M.Billoo2000: Hi! Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Bry/Brynn, and I go by she/they. This is my first GA review. You should check in on this page proactively, and see whether I put anything on fail or hold. If I do, then you or some other editor must fix it before the 22^nd, otherwise I'll have to fail this GA. I will be bold and fix any minor issues myself, though. If you fix any issue with the article, reply on this discussion thread. Have a great coming week! Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Replies by M.Billoo2000

1a

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

1b

Please check that I tried adding the film theme. Although I have not frequently seen a separate section Theme in the film articles, and MOS itself says it to be optional. Further, I am unable to find or generate critical consensus for the lead, and I assume it currently summarizes all other sections fairly. Do you have any suggestions? M. Billoo 20:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I just edited a new sentence into the lead, I think it should suffice. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not think this would work and may fall under un-WP:ATTRIButed WP:SYNTH, or potential WP:OR. M. Billoo

No? WP:ATTRIB didn't even get a consensus, and it's not WP:SYNTH either, because SYNTH is about unrelated stuff being stitched together to appear as though they are the same topic. These are clearly critical reviews about the same film. It's not WP:OR because you get the same info but more detailed in the Critical reception section, which is sourced. The lead section should summarize the rest of the article.

2a

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

2b

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

2c

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

2d

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

3a

• Thank you for highlighting. I have also tried to highlight similar concerns at the article talk page, several months ago, before nominating for GA. Because I was myself unsure if these speculations needs to be added or not. However, the lead pair reference from Wednesday is written already, I suppose if I am not wrong. M. Billoo 17:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In any case, I eould disagree adding Wednesday love interests for now. Fiction and two separate topics. We see real world facts. M. Billoo 18:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It’s gonna be a bit out of the article’s scope. I’ll remove the addition. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Is WP:DEXERTO a reliable source? And what more can be added from ref #18? M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Turns out it’s not a WP:RS, my bad. The Refideas template was just for suggestions, please replace it with a better source. Sorry and thank you.

Also I had no idea what was going on in my head when I said source 18, please ignore that. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

No problem, I can understand. The only reason I had never added this info was that I could never find reliable reference, and so it was a pending query at the talk page. And the only reason I added it now is that you highlighted and held the review. It is up to you now, thank you and hope for the best outcome. I may request to please carefully double-check because once the article had been a victim of failed-GAN. M. Billoo 17:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I have re-added some context using Decider reference's attribution. "it focuses on Paramount, completely ignoring any other sites": Are any other sites WP:DUE? M. Billoo 20:00, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

They are WP:DUE. If a movie is available to watch on multiple sites, only saying it’s available on one of them is misleading. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

While it is true that the film is available, but except this, I am unable to find any other secondary coverage to cite the streaming services. And since Forbes was already highlighted at the talk page, I may avoid ginving more WP:WEIGHT to its report. M. Billoo 21:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Using the same Forbes source twice is okay. It doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT, because we're not going to say "Forbes said the film became available on XYZ" (that would be undue), we're going to just say "the film became available on XYZ".

Anyways, sorry for not responding for so long. I've just done a cross-country flight on holiday and so I might take until the 24th of July for the GAN. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

3b

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

4

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

5

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

6a

• I saw it and I used it. Sorry if I was unable to verify its license. If this is the issue, it needs to be addressed at the Wikimedia Commons. M. Billoo 17:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• No problem. I can fix it myself. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I fixed the image by replacing it with another one. Tell me if it’s good. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

You’re welcome! Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

6b

Thank you. M. Billoo 01:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)