Talk:Home Made Mince Pie/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to get these all out of the way... JAGUAR  17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD

   Nothing on the Production in the lead, despite the section being scarce the lead must summarise, even if it's minor

   The plot summary in the lead is quite extensive

   "The focus of the humor is in a mince pie that brandy is added to in an attempt to make it more appreciable" - this doesn't make any sense, focus of the film maybe?

   "Reviewers mentioned that the film was too long" - but the length of the film (apart a measurement) isn't in the article

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is another good one. Well researched and well written. Nothing major so it can be put on hold. This film sounds hilarious too! JAGUAR  20:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)