Talk:All the Money in the World/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) 09:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Starting the GA review, expect to complete initial stage within 48 hrs. On a quick read, looking pretty good, IMO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Text is easy to understand, flows well, and is structured in a logical and coherent manner, with correct spelling and grammar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Referencing is appropriate in both quantity and quality, to reliable industry sources and multiple mainstream RS media outlets. I've found nothing to suggest copyvio, OR or other such issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all key areas one would expect to find in a well-developed article on a major film.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A potential minefield, namely the problem related to Spacey, is handled in an objective and neutral manner. The 'Release' section is factual and backed up throughout by references to external reviews, with no sign of POV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Plenty of the usual ebb and flow including multiple reverts, but nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing that comes across as edit warring.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Could do with a few more images, but the ones that are there, are appropriate with no obvious issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good article in all respects. Having read it twice now, I found nothing to criticise or even any areas of major development needed. Happy to endorse this nom.

Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)