Jump to content

Talk:Persuasion (1995 film)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Ew Jane Austin. :(

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope seems grand, doesn't stray too wide or narrow.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutrality is fine, not an issue here.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History is good and stable.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.