Talk:Persuasion (1995 film)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Ew Jane Austin. :(
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- MOS is grand. Your prose style could work better though - the cast list is almost-halfway made up of redlinks which could be culled, for instance, and the awards section could have a prose introduction to the list.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Sources all seem grand and are used well.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Scope seems grand, doesn't stray too wide or narrow.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Neutrality is fine, not an issue here.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- History is good and stable.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Images are grand. One is fair use which checks out, the other is free from commons.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All things toted up, I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. I still think the Cast section could do with a trimming down, though, as redlinks for actors in tiny roles is essentially a form of cruft.
- Pass or Fail: