Talk:Bringing Up Baby/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Will review shortly. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A well written article, and definitely meets the GA-criteria. This is going to be an embarrassingly short review:

• I read through the peer review, and I must say that was quite a discussion on in-line citations. Having reviewed several of Blofeld's articles in the past I can safely assume that the claims are covered in the sources provided, but while every single sentence does not need in-line citations, it would be good to provide one for these claims:
  

1. Image caption in the casting section: "...while Grant was rapidly becoming a major star."

Removed claim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

2. In reception: "The film received good advance reviews, and RKO expected a hit."

3. Use of "gay" section: "According to Robert Chapman's Dictionary of American Slang, the adjective "gay" was used by homosexuals among themselves since at least 1920."

• In the D&W section, Gunga Din is in italics in some places and in quotes elsewhere. Maintain consistency.
• Reception section: "In a Variety review "Wear" praised the film,..". Not sure what "Wear" is supposed to signify here.
• In the "external links" section, why is "Theater of Romance" in boldface?

I will be happy to pass when these are addressed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. Addressed all except the 1920 one which I can't access in gb. I've added the book but can't access the page number. I'll ask Deo if he has access. but it's not stopping it passing is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha, no no, it's fine. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Deo has bought a book I believe so it'll continue to be worked on and a themes section added etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. You should take it to the FAC after that. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)