Talk:Midsommar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting my review now, hope to have it done today or tomorrow. -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (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.	Spelling/grammar are correct, prose is concise and makes sense.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The cast list is correctly formatted and the synopsis is 699 words, one under the 700 word limit; nice. Everything else is good.
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.	Proper list of references at the bottom, and all claims are cited.
	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).	All quotes and claims are cited; the "themes and analysis" and "reception" sections are quite heavy with these, and they're all cited correctly.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research that I can see.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no violations, and quotes are properly cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses all the topics you'd usually see on an article about a film. The addition of the "themes and analysis" section was helpful and interesting too.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Readable prose size and stays focused.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Sections that could be biased (especially reviews/reception) are all quoted and properly cited.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars.
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.	All media is correctly tagged; theatrical release poster has non-free use rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Very nice article, and seems like an interesting movie. Nicely done, and thanks to @Cinemacriterion: for creating this article and contributing a good bit and to @Arcahaeoindris: for contributing a lot and nominating. -MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)