Talk:Pre-Code crime films
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Pre-Code crime films has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Okay
[edit]I think this is ready for GA. Lets see how it goes. AaronY (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Pre-Code crime films/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wildroot (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC) I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 29, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Written in clear language, with good flow and article structure.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, covers many aspects, nice work.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Article indeed appears written with a neutral tone.
- 5. Article stability? Stable
- 6. Images?: Six images used - fair use rationale on image pages.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Congratulations to AaronY! Wildroot (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pre-Code crime films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110415202912/http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1931/little-caesar/ to http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1931/little-caesar/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061020022105/http://www.dvdtown.com/review/littlecaesarwarnerbros.gangste/15324/2636/ to http://www.dvdtown.com/review/littlecaesarwarnerbros.gangste/15324/2636/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103220430/http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collections/Profiles/pre.html to http://www.cinema.ucla.edu/collections/Profiles/pre.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)