Talk:Into the Crevasse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Sources aplenty!

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Most sources check out fine, but ref numbers 5 through 8 are from the Internet Movie Database, which is a user-generated website; I'm a bit uncomforable with this, considering that the IMDb isn't considered reliable from my expierience, any reason why they should be accepted?

   IMDb cannot be used as a source to back up any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs), the trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions, etc., but I removed them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Only one copyrighted image; has the apporpriate tags.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   So far, nice work. Just need one thing sorted out really, then hopefully, I'll pass it. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   OK, now that the issue has been addressed, I can now pass the article. Good job! -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for reviewing the article. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)