Talk:FernGully: The Last Rainforest/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Can you give more description of the characters in the cast section. Something like Captain America: The Winter Soldier should be good. That might be nice, but it isn't a requirement for GA. The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc, a previous film article I nominated for GA only has a standard cast list, and Tank Girl (film), which I also nominated, doesn't have a cast section at all, on account of the fact it is merged with the plot section. Freikorp (talk)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	DAB link to Geoffrey Blake Done Freikorp (talk) numbers from one through ten are written as words per MOS:NUM I think I got them all. Freikorp (talk)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Refs for authors of soundtrack? I added another inline citation to the Allmusic review, which backs up the artists and album length, amongst other things. Freikorp (talk)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	ISSNs for newspapers? Added ISSN's for all offline newspaper sources. Freikorp (talk)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi Tomandjerry211. Thanks for your review. Let me know if you want me to do anything else. Freikorp (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing anyways, but would you check this?

Done. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]