Talk:The Tic Code/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This review will address the following criteria:

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Generally the writing is clear, I made a couple of minor edits to the lead for stylistic reasons. The Premise section should be renamed to Plot in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Article_body and expanded following those guidelines. Likewise Production should be ordered development, pre-production, production or filming, post-production, with separate sentences or paras for these.

I think the films Themes deserve to be discussed in their own section. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) 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); and (c) it contains no original research.

The article is properly cited and referenced in accordance with WP:RS. Reference #4 @http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DC113AF933A05754C0A9669C8B63 is dead. You can probably find a new URL or use the Internet Archive. I think that the statement "insurance company-backed film library Chaross Pictures, which buys independent films that have run into financial difficulty" in the Release section should be supported by citation. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Chaross Pictures comment is cited to this article; see the citation immediately following the statement. Steve ^{T • C} 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, got that, but the broken link needs fixing. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the deadlink to the NYT article; that shouldn't be a problem at all, as offline sources are perfectly allowed. It's probably just a temporary server issue at their end; the article clearly exists, but if it stays absent, all it means is that if ever anyone wants to verify the content, they'd have to go to a library or something. Steve ^{T • C} 07:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll assume WP:AGF that the reference supports the cited facts. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I think a small amount of expansion is need as stated by me in the first section above. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see another editor has attempted work on it and left a banner behind, which I am now going to remove. The plot section is succinct and that is probably preferable to unwanted padding. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

I am satisfied that the aricle meets WP:NPOVJezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article appears to be stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

The image of the DVD cover is properly cited in the rationale for fair use. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If the above points are addressed, I see no reason why this should not achieve good article status. Placing on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Still needs a Themes section. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
   • However, this is not essential for a GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References #4 still broken Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Acceptable as clearly a reference to a reputable dead-teree publication. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just the broken link and Themes section need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it meets the criteria, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)