Talk:It Is the Law/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review pending

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	After reviewing several articles with run-on sentences, overusage of commas, sentences without even using article words like the word "the" -- it is most refreshing to come across an article that is both shorter in size and shorter in terms of writing style -- meaning the writing style is succinct, and also concise, and uses less commas, and overall generally, the writing style is better, and more direct, and to the point, than this sentence, itself, that I wrote, just now!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede intro sect is a bit short, but as noted, below, this is to be expected for something from this time period of which it's likely not a whole lot has been documented after all this time in a preponderance of secondary sources. It's possible for WP:FAC potential more research could be done to expand the article, and thereafter the WP:LEAD, but this is good enough at this point in time for GA for an article about a film from 1924.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Suggest adding a cite at the end of the sentence in the Notes sect. Otherwise, very well cited throughout. I like how even the Plot sect is sourced to secondary sources. Very well done!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Very high level sources used here. No issues here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is primarily reliant upon secondary sources of quite high reliability. No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It is most understandable that an article about a 1924 film adapted from a 1922 play would be a bit shorter than most of our other WP:FILM articles of WP:GA quality. That's okay. It is a "good" article that probably informs the reader much better than anything else out there on the Internet about this topic, and well sourced as well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is short and sweet.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is indeed neutral and written in a matter-of-fact tone, throughout. No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues at all upon inspection of article talk page and also article edit history, since creation of both.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Both images free-use licensed, both hosted by Wikimedia Commons, I checked both image pages and both check out on image pages, image review passes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are both indeed directly relevant to the article and its subject matter.
	7. Overall assessment.	Short and sweet and concise and succinct and GA. — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cirt. I've sourced that footnote. I'm not sure how I managed to leave the citations for that behind when migrating my research notes to article form, but it's better now. I'll agree that this one is probably too thin to take to FAC in its current form, and I'm working to scrape up some more information. Sadly, Edwards's career went out with more of a whimper than a bang, and I was surprised by the dearth of coverage. For now, though, thanks again for the green badge review! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome, Squeamish Ossifrage! Thank you for your Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, — Cirt (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)