Talk:Death in Small Doses (1995 film)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death in Small Doses (1995 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 19:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll give this a shot. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This is probably one of the best nominations I've ever seen.

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):

   Excellent prose, however I've suggested some minor changes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Citations are all in perfect shape, and Earwig found no issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers everything it needs to.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable.

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

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

   All images are good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very good overall.

• The couple also often argued over Nancy's family who looked down on Richard. A comma would help.
• Linking "fire ant" is probably unnecessary.
• On the other hand, "indicts" should probably be linked.
• Just "People" should be used instead of "People magazine", as that is magazine's official name.
• In a glowing review WP:PEACOCK.
• Other reviewers were more critical. This feels a little fragmentary; it might look better with a semicolon instead of a period.

I'll place it on hold, although none of these issues are particularly in need of change if you disagree with any of my suggestions. Good work. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@An anonymous username, not my real name: Thanks for taking on this review. With regards to the issues you brought up, I've made the following changes:

• Added comma after "family"
• Removed wikilink to fire ants
• Added wikilink to indicts
• Removed "magazine"
• Changed "glowing" to "positive"
• Added semicolon

Let me know if I missed anything or if there are any further issues. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy improvements. Everything looks good now, so I'll pass it. Congratulations. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the film Death in Small Doses is a dramatization of the real life death of Nancy Lyon by arsenic poisoning? Source: Vancheri, Barbara (January 15, 1995). "A New Direction: Sondra Locke tackles TV with 'Death in Small Doses'". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. pp. 4–5.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alt attribute

Improved to Good Article status by Bennv123 (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 19:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC).

• Newness requirement satisfied by promotion to GA on 11/26. Long enough. Generally well written and sourced. Earwig turns up no issues. Hook has inline citation to off-line source -- good faith assumed. Hook is short enough and interesting. QPQ done. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)