Talk:Casino Royale (Climax!)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs · count) 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS and prose are both fine. I see no problems here.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Citations are grand. Nothing left uncited and the sources used seem suitable.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Could be a little more complete, I'm thinking. I managed to find this article on the lead actress, and this review. Not sure how helpful either would be, so if they don't add anything of value then consider criterion 3 passed.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Article is neutral and presents no subjective views.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History seems stable and uncontroversial.
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:
Image is used appropriately, and tagged with a decent rationale. Hard to think that such a doughy face is the first one they put the Bond name to, though...
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just going to hold this one until you guys have a look at those two links. If they don't add anything then I'll consider this one passed. GRAPPLE X 03:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah he's too much of a lard ass to be Bond!! I've at least addeda review now which mentions that he was miscast. The first link didn't really have anything on it, although the second was very useful, thanks for that. I've added the details and given it a bit of a rework. If there is anything else you want let me know! I've expanded it further, vast majority of sources only briefly mention this episode as it pales in significance to the films, I think its a pretty good coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, then. Ready to pass this one. GRAPPLE X 14:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]