Talk:Fame (1980 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some possible issues

This Review is on hold until the possible issues found on Earwig's Copyvio Detector are discussed etc. There is a 75% score with afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspxs=&Movie=56407 the AFI article and a 90% score with alanparker.com/film/fame/making. Usually in these cases it is a matter of the other source mirroring WP or of an abundance of quotes appearing within the WP article. I am casting no aspersions here, just that this needs to be discussed on this Review page before I can proceed. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• I have made attempts to shorten details on the article, as per your suggestions.FrankRizzo (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The above issues have been dealt with to my satisfaction. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Just one spelling issue that was taken care of before I could even mention it here. Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead is good to go, layout is fine, didn't see any WP:PUFFERY - all looks good. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Referencing style is consistent. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Ran checklinks, statements are referenced, etc. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool - looks good after nominator's fixes. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars! Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am going to do some more proofreading-readthroughs to catch any possible issues I might have missed. Pending any new problems, I should be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

   The timeline of the original movie and its subsequent projects is nicely laid-out and easy to understand. Going forward the only change I would think about would be to go through and adjust possible puffery words - for instance that Cara was propelled to "musical stardom" by the film, etc. Shearonink (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)