Talk:Bringing Up Baby/GA1

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Krimuk90 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Will review shortly. -- KRIMUK90  15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A well written article, and definitely meets the GA-criteria. This is going to be an embarrassingly short review:

  • I read through the peer review, and I must say that was quite a discussion on in-line citations. Having reviewed several of Blofeld's articles in the past I can safely assume that the claims are covered in the sources provided, but while every single sentence does not need in-line citations, it would be good to provide one for these claims:
1. Image caption in the casting section: "...while Grant was rapidly becoming a major star."
Removed claim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
2. In reception: "The film received good advance reviews, and RKO expected a hit."
3. Use of "gay" section: "According to Robert Chapman's Dictionary of American Slang, the adjective "gay" was used by homosexuals among themselves since at least 1920."
  • In the D&W section, Gunga Din is in italics in some places and in quotes elsewhere. Maintain consistency.
  • Reception section: "In a Variety review "Wear" praised the film,..". Not sure what "Wear" is supposed to signify here.
  • In the "external links" section, why is "Theater of Romance" in boldface?

I will be happy to pass when these are addressed. -- KRIMUK90  12:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. Addressed all except the 1920 one which I can't access in gb. I've added the book but can't access the page number. I'll ask Deo if he has access. but it's not stopping it passing is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Haha, no no, it's fine. :) -- KRIMUK90  13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:   -- KRIMUK90  13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Deo has bought a book I believe so it'll continue to be worked on and a themes section added etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. You should take it to the FAC after that. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90  13:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply