Talk:Rescued by Rover/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• Per WP:PEACOCK, watch out for some words used here such as "immensely popular film", and "quickly became a classic". What defines it to be a classic? It's importance? It's quality? I'd remove this.
• Some phrases seem a bit funny and oddly placed, I'll try to clean them after if you fix up some other things if you'd like. I'd rephrase "It also had strong story parallels to D. W. Griffith's début film The Adventures of Dollie of three years later." to "Rescued by Rover has parallels with D. W. Griffith's debut film The Adventures of Dollie (1908)."

1. B. MoS compliance:

• Check over some things with MOS:FILM. The lead's first sentance should state the genre and nationality of the film.
• Use "While" instead of "Whilst".
• Check "WP:EMDASH" to change your -'s to –'s.
• To co-inside with MOS:FILM again, could you try to combine the analysis section with production?

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   For some of the web sources, they note book sources. I would try to look those up or use them instead of citing the web. For example, authenticsociety.com shows their sources they used. Also, as much I believe it, I'm not sure if citation 19 (Weekly World News) should be used as a source. The fact seems possibly real enough, but I can't really let myself to use that magazine as a reliable source. haha!

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Again, some peacock terms, but this is easily fixed.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems stable!

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Could you add a caption to the infobox to explain what it is? It should be just enough so it explains what the picture is of to someone who hasn't read the article yet.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Putting this on hold for a week. If you have any questions or finish beforehand, just post a message on my talk page. Great job!

Thanks for the review. I've addressed most of the issues you've raised except for the references - I'll have to hit the library for that so I can get the correct books listed. Also thanks for the offer of going through the text to smooth it out, I appreciate it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Managed to swap out the two web references that had sources with alternative book sources. Miyagawa (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Job! I've done a quick copy-edit and it seems fine to me. I'd try to find some better sources for some of the web ones, but this is for GA not FA. Overall this is great work on an interesting part of film history. I've passed it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)