Talk:Brenda Blethyn/GA1
Latest comment: 10 years ago by NinjaRobotPirate in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) 21:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Grammar needs a bit of work. "with <noun> <verbing>", for example, is not grammatically correct.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- "Acclaimed" and other peacock terms should be replaced with more descriptive and informative text.
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- References to the IMDb, which is not a reliable source. Needs more citations to verify awards and critical reception when it is merely asserted without a citation, such the part about A River Runs Through It.
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Currently needs more work. Copy editing will solve most but not all of these problems. In particular, the referencing for awards and reception needs to be improved.
- Pass or Fail:
I left this open for a while, as I thought that I would perhaps get around to fixing it myself. However, after over a week, it seems as though this is not going to happen. I finally cleaned up the grammar a bit and replaced an unreliable source, but there's too much work to be done for me to keep this open indefinitely in the hopes that I or someone else will eventually clean it up. In particular, the sourcing needs to be improved dramatically. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)