Talk:Professor Popper's Problem/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime and budget usually have citations in the infobox.
That being said, the runtime doesn't need to be sourced in the lead.
In the first note, can a more reliable source be added rather than using Amazon.com?
Shouldn't BBC (or the network the shorts originally aired in) be mentioned in the infobox or in the lead?
Add a comma after "Milo O'Shea".
"minaturised" → "miniaturised"

Corrected everything but the Amazon reference. I searched far and wide for a better source for this info but drew blanks. Not perfect, I know, but one fears I can't do much about this (the woes of detailing obscure films).

"after it find" → "after it finds"
Add a comma after "Terry, Angus, Carol".
I suggest changing "Danger" to "The danger" as it sounds better.
The plot section is under 700 words, so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
Per WP:FILMCAST, roles such as "Headmaster" and "Meter Maid" should be lowercased.

Optional, but can the uses of "..." here and in the rest of the article be changed to "[...]"?
Instead of a note about the budget, I think it would be easier to use the template for inflation in the UK.

Corrected ellipses. I'll confess, I don't know how to use the alternative template. If you feel RPI is insufficient I'd appreciate your own input.

Link all linkable websites/publishers/agencies in this section.
There's a reference titled "Shail, The Children's Film Foundation, p. 114." and then multiple citations simply left as "Shail, p. 28.". I suggest adding a #Bibliography section to make things simpler (as in the GA-articles The Sound of Music (film) and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) or, if you choose, you make just make the citations more consistent.

Corrected. Believe I got all the links, at least! Alas, some were too obscure for Wiki at present.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Really appreciate you taking a look at this, Some Dude From North Carolina! Let me know if you require any further input. Curlymanjaro (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]