Talk:Brainstorm (2000 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Should complete this one soon ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• "The film tells the story of Neto (Santoro)" - no need to mention who plays the character(s) in the lead
• "Bodanzky chose to make it a documentary-like film" - bit informal. How about "documentary style" or something similar?
• "After being rewritten five times, the script was shot in early 2000" - the 'script' was shot?
• The lead summarises the article well, ableit some parts could be reworded, but this part meets the GA criteria
• "The films ends with Neto and his father seated side by side curbside. Wilson cries" - those two short sentences are very choppy! The part with Wilson crying could be merged with this sentence, with something like by the side curbside, with Wilson crying?
• 'Nurse' should be capitalised in the Cast section
• "The film paved the way for new thinking about psychiatric institutions in Brazil which led to a law approved by Congress that forbid such institutions" - this standalone sentence should either be expanded or merged in one of the sub sections here

References

• No dead links, but according to the toolserver there one ref is missing an access date

On hold

Looks like a solid article. I could only spot some choppy sentences but other than the all sections comply per the criteria and the references are also formatted. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've (hopelly) fixed all issues. The ref withouth an accessdate is the book on Bibliography. As a book, I don't think it needs an accessdate. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast response! Ah sorry I didn't notice it was part of the Bibliography, but nevertheless everything else checks out. We're good to promote this ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)