Talk:Up (2009 film)/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Crisco 1492 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will conduct this review in a few steps.
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. See below GTG
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Seems fine
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. See below GTG
  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). See below GTG
  2c. it contains no original research. See below GTG
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Seems to have adequate coverage
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). See below GTG
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. See below GTG
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Seems stable (within definition)
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. All look fine (conservative note below)
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. See below GTG
  7. Overall assessment. See below GTG
Since the article writer retired, there's two options to go here. The first is just to fail the nom, the second is to leave a note at the Film WikiProject and hope that someone picks this up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Coming from WP:FILM per the above notice, I've done my best to address the above points. Please let me know if you notice any other issues or areas for improvement to meet the GA criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply