Talk:Death in Small Doses (1995 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 19:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably one of the best nominations I've ever seen.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Excellent prose, however I've suggested some minor changes.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Citations are all in perfect shape, and Earwig found no issues.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers everything it needs to.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Very good overall.

The couple also often argued over Nancy's family who looked down on Richard. A comma would help.
Linking "fire ant" is probably unnecessary.
On the other hand, "indicts" should probably be linked.
Just "People" should be used instead of "People magazine", as that is magazine's official name.
In a glowing review WP:PEACOCK.
Other reviewers were more critical. This feels a little fragmentary; it might look better with a semicolon instead of a period.

I'll place it on hold, although none of these issues are particularly in need of change if you disagree with any of my suggestions. Good work. An anonymous username, not my real name 21:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: Thanks for taking on this review. With regards to the issues you brought up, I've made the following changes:

Let me know if I missed anything or if there are any further issues. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy improvements. Everything looks good now, so I'll pass it. Congratulations. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]