Talk:The Silent Command/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Argento Surfer in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This may take a day or two for me to get through. If I raise an issue, feel free to address it immediately.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- I've made a few copyedits to the prose. Please review for accuracy and revise anything you disagree with.
- The plot is very succinct for a film that runs between 1.5 and 2 hours. I'm fine with it as is if you are, but there's plenty of room for expansion if you want to include more detail.
- I've grown accustomed to depending on contemporary capsule summaries for the plots of lost films. In this case, since the film is both extant and readily available, there's really no reason to do so. Accordingly, I agree with your assessment (this is well below the MOS recommendation for a plot length), but it'll be a little while until I can write a replacement based on the film itself. I'll leave it up to you whether this meets the GA standard before I can get that done (although I'll clearly need to do so before considering this one for FAC). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it. Sometimes shorter is better.
- I've grown accustomed to depending on contemporary capsule summaries for the plots of lost films. In this case, since the film is both extant and readily available, there's really no reason to do so. Accordingly, I agree with your assessment (this is well below the MOS recommendation for a plot length), but it'll be a little while until I can write a replacement based on the film itself. I'll leave it up to you whether this meets the GA standard before I can get that done (although I'll clearly need to do so before considering this one for FAC). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- I assume the cast is divided by the lead and supporting roles, but it's not clear from the list as it is now. The placement of the divcol template without a subheader just makes it look poorly formatted.
- This was trendy in film articles for a (very) brief period of time. I've gone ahead and converted this to normal divcols, and am not the least bit sad about it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- "These shots may have been intended " - this sounds speculative. The person guessing should be named inline so readers know Wikipedia isn't the one doing it.
- Repulling sources so that I can make the connections here clearer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- This should be fixed now, and provides a little better context as to the connection from Trilby to German cinema to The Silent Command. Hopefully. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repulling sources so that I can make the connections here clearer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern per Earwig
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- nothing obvious has been omitted
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This is in good shape, but a few points need to be addressed before I can pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- My concerns have been satisfied. I'm happy to pass this. If/when you go for FAC, I'd be happy to contribute to the discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is in good shape, but a few points need to be addressed before I can pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
