Talk:Richard Roma/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Pass as GA

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.	It is indeed well written, with succinct wording throughout and good prose style. The lede intro sect doesn't mention much of the character's Plot, but that's okay in this one particular article because we get to it quite soon after that.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good structural organization. Exactly what we like to see here. And yet also leaves a bit of room for further expansion.
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.	Duly cited throughout to high-quality sources, acceptable for a fictional character biography, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, etc.
	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).	Yes, every single factual assertion in the article is back up to reliable citations, except the Plot section. Moving forwards, I would indeed recommend citing the Plot section to secondary sources -- merely because in this one particular instance it's so short that it would be so easy to do that.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is primarily reliant upon secondary sources, throughout. Primary sources are used for matter-of-fact statements only, like to back up Awards info, which is totally fine, as they are reliable.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Some room for expansion here. Perhaps a Themes and/or Impact section in the future. Themes would discuss what themes are involved in the character's history, and Impact what greater affect the character has made on popular culture within other productions, genres, etc.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is concise and maintains a very specific focus which helps out its readability, throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutrally written with a matter-of-fact tone and factual presentation of events related to the fictional character and its reception over time.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Upon inspection of article edit history, one IP edit on 9 October 2015, but it appears the GA Nominator got this under control okay. Talk page shows no issues ongoing.
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.	No images used, which is okay, but maybe for the future going forwards good add a picture of Al Pacino in an iconic scene in the role, perhaps when he makes his famous quote: "Where did you learn your trade?".
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above for an image suggestion to add to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall a nice concise "Good Article", with a bit of room for expansion in the future as it moves along the Quality improvement process going forwards. — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a "Good Article", with a bit of room for expansion for the future. — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)