Talk:The Pasha's Daughter/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by ChrisGualtieri in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply


Nearly done. Two more to go. JAGUAR  19:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD
    Nothing on the Production in the lead, despite the section being scarce the lead must summarise, even if it's minor
    The plot summary in the lead is quite extensive
    Is the list of people in the production sentence a definite list of people who worked on the film? The lead says otherwise
    The names in the Cast section are not in the lead
    The original story must be linked
    Production should be fleshed out
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Why is every character always called Jack? But anyway, passing this on the grounds of research JAGUAR  21:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes, Jack and May - Lonergan liked those names and used them frequently. Though the characters were identified in official plot summaries - the audiences were not treated to names. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we use the names as intended - but you'll seen dozens of instances in which Jack and May are the names. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply