GA Review

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

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first GA review so bare with me, might not be the best.

Review

Quickfail

1. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria Done
2. It contains copyright violations Done
3. It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. Done
4. It is not stable due to edit warring on the page Done
5. It has issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed, as determined by a reviewer who has not previously reviewed the article Done
It passes all quickfail so the review will continue.

GA Criteria

1. Well written?: Done

Nothing is really confusing worded and no words are misspelled.(as far as I'm aware) Everything is backed up nothing reads as repetitive, unnecessary, or overly explained. If you wear to read this to a child they wouldnt fully comprehend it but they would get the gist and understand it.

2. Verifiable?: Done

Upon reviewing the sources nothing pops out as unreliable. I am unfamiliar with most of them but that's just due to what I usually write. Everything is nice and archived, and it has a good variety of sources so I would say pass.

3. Broad in coverage?: Done

When checking the table of contents it has a large variety of sections that answers most questions that the article would raise. The subheadings all make sense and nothing seems irrelevant. The article's length is justified and I can not think of any spin-off articles, that could be made or need to be made.

4. Neutral point of view?: Done

No line in the article feels objectively "praisy" like the stuff you'd see in a fluff piece. I think the only place where this would be a problem is the reception where no negative reviews are shown. While this could seem like a issue when I went looking for negative reviews I couldn't find any from a source with a good reputation as well as most of them seemingly having a racial undertone.

5. Stable?: Done

Article is stable the last revert was in 2021 and it was due to technical changes. Nothing really to say.

6. Images?: Done

The images look nice at first glance, nothing immedietly feels out of place. The captions for each image fit what they discripe and nothing is a violation of copyright law. I think the use of images to show filming locations is a nice touch which I will consider in my articles from now on.