Talk:Miracle at St. Anna/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Overall this looks quite strong and ripe for promotion. It perhaps relies a bit heavily on the the film's press materials, but none of this information seems particularly controversial and overall it does a good job of covering the subject neutrally. I did a few prose tweaks as I went; please feel free to revert any you disagree with.

Here's some points I couldn't immediately resolve myself:

• "which he believes to carry magical powers" -- is "he" Sam or the boy here?
• "during the massacre at St. Anna" -- what massacre was this? I'm not sure I follow.
• could a sentence about Renata's role in the plot be added to the plot summary?
• "The first ten days of filming took place in the Serchio River" -- should this be on the river? Or did the whole sequence literally take place in the water? (I haven't seen this movie, in case it's not obvious from my comments so far).
• " A scene that recreates the Sant'Anna di Stazzema massacre was shot on the actual location where the atrocity took place" -- I'm still not clear what role this massacre has in the movie's plot.
• " Lucas generously allowed" -- It's a minor point, but "generously" seems both POV and unneeded here.
• "the film currently has a 34% rating" -- "currently" should be rewritten as "As of" or some other formulation to avoid going out of date per WP:REALTIME
• Could you add what the acronym ANPI stands for? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read your initial comments, and fixed as much as I could. -- User:FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 24:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that covers all of the above. I'll start the checklist now and see if there's anything left. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	Poster image is tagged with rationale.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass