Grandma (2015 film) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
While I can't sympathize with this movie's subject matter, I will take over this nomination, as it has taken you nearly a year in waiting for someone to review this.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(1) A brief mention of the themes is missing in the lead. (2) In the plot, find an alternative for the informal word "tech-savvy," and in Themes WL septuagenarian via Wiktionary. (3) A bare-boned listing of Cast is only appropriate to stub-quality articles; I would imitate the alternate infoboxed cast like that in Jaws (an FA) located in its Casting section. Place it in Production and support it with a citation beside 'Actors' using the British Film Institute source. (4) Don't bother with dividing Production into two subsections since it's kinda skimpy through a cursory glance anyway. (5) I think the critics' praise of its abortion themes should be moved somewhere in Reception, which brings me to another concern... (6) The Reception could use a thematic organization, written somewhere along the lines of WP:RECEPTION; as it stands it reads almost like a series of pull-quotes structured in "Publication X's reviewer Y gave," which is used almost exclusively. (7) Fix incorrect grammar "with an average" to "and an average", and remove the unnecessary "certified fresh" as it's nuanced and not contextualized. (8) I notice a decent amount of direct quotations, please paraphrase whenever you can and if possible without quoting; review the prose for whether or not they observe logical quotations.
(1) FN 39 is linkrot; while you're at it, might wanna archive all the sources as a preemptive measure. (2) In the infobox music, cinematography, editor and production companies are unsourced, but the BFI source I gave above can support this so just repeat it here; the BBFC source for the runtime is incorrect because the link reports on the movie's home video runtime (Feature), not the theatrical one (which is 'Film'). (3) Box Office Mojo reports box office figures from the U.S. and Canada as "domestic", so its $6.9 million domestic gross came from both the U.S. and Canada, not just the US. (4) Your argument (both in the lead and Reception) that the film had "positive reviews", or perhaps "critical acclaim", requires a citation to RS which explicitly states this. (5) The reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes has now clocked at 162, don't forget to change the date the data was retrieved.
(1) From a GA standpoint the coverage is sufficient enough, but you could flesh a tad bit more about the movie using the audio commentary from its Blu-ray version. (2) A coverage of the film's home video releases should be reported somewhere in Release section; see MOS:FILM#Home media for what to include.
(1) Poster needs a clear FUR. (2) No periods in captions unless they follow complete sentences.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I prefer not to put nominations on hold unless I'm dealing with an editor whose activity is sporadic. Happy to pass this once the concerns are addressed, thank you for enduring nearly a year of wait. Slightlymad 08:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slightlymad: Thanks for the review. I've started working my way through the changes you recommended, and will continue as I have the time. I'll keep you posted if I have any questions along the way. 97198 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I was out of town over the weekend. I'll try to rework the reception section and get to the other points over the next few days. 97198 (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Slightlymad: I'm sorry, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia and I probably won't be able to address the rest of this review in the near future. It's not fair to ask you to put the review on hold indefinitely, so feel free to fail it – I may eventually renominate it. 97198 (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, sorry to hear that. Thank you for letting me know. Unfortunately, I will have to fail the article, but feel free to renominate it once the issues have been addressed. Slightlymad 04:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
