Talk:Hud (1963 film)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:29, 3 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.	Improved since last review and is good for GA
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Convert all your refs to either {{sfn}}s or ref tags. If it has no author you can do this via putting the template {{sfnRef}} In the "
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.
	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).	Firstly, NYTimes.com doesn't author the New York Times Instead of writing ".... Staff" in the author parameter I think you should just write "Staff Writer" Three external links have problems
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	good enough
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	good enough
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	good enough
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	good enough
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.	good enough
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	good enough
	7. Overall assessment.

1b: Done, didn't realize about the box office link.
2b: NYtimes, changed to New York Times staff. IMO you don't really need to clarify "staff writer", many publications including the Times itself, Rolling Stone and Variety sometimes identity the authorship of their works with "xxx staff". About the external links, they are not really an issue: they change paths, but the info is still there. On the plus side, they are also archived on the Wayback Machine.--GDuwenTell me! 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing, well done.Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]