Talk:The Bold Bank Robbery/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Taylor Trescott

Hi there. I will begin this review in the next few days. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo!!! You've got me! Heh, looking forward to it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Quadell, my life has been very busy and I will have limited time for article writing. This might mean it will take a bit before I can respond to your concerns. Sorry for the inconvenience. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it can be finished up in either December or January, then it will still count for the GAN Drive, and it's fine. (But if you drag this out into February, then I'll have to concede that you're sneakier than me...

) Seriously though, I'll review the article shortly and leave it open for longer than usual, no problem. Enjoy whatever holidays and joys life brings you in late December! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I have made some rather bold copy-edits. If you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert and discuss. Included were same spelling corrections that I'm not 100% sure on; if these are regional spelling variations, my apologies, feel free to change those back.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead follows MOS:LEAD, and the article is organized well according to MOS:LAYOUT. The plot summary follows WP:MOSFICT, and the whole thing avoids WP:W2W.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references and bibliography are fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Everything that needs to be cited, is. I even checked some of the sources for plagiarism and was pleased (though not surprised) to find everything rewritten in your own words.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article says, "He often devised the stories for their films". The source says "Frawley apparently made all Lubin's films", but "devised the stories" goes beyond the source a bit. (Other Lubin films like Fun on the Farm seemed to have no real story at all.) You could say he often constructed the films or assembled them, but I'd be careful calling them "stories". All issues have been resolved.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There really isn't that much info available. I think this covers the important aspects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems with bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	An edit war on this article would be... unexpected.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm pretty sure the image of Lubin is free. (He died in 1923, and he's clearly younger than 70 in the photo.) I do wish some publication history were provided for the photo though. The ad is certainly free, and all required information is present.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Since the film is PD, it's a shame we don't have the entire film on Commons, like we do for File:Winsor McCay (1912) How a Mosquito Operates.webm. ~~Even the Billboard ad would make an excellent addition.~~ But that's not required for GA status.
	7. Overall assessment.	This fulfills all our GA criteria, and I'm pleased to promote it.

I'll put this nomination on hold. If you address the above issues in a reasonable period of time, I'm sure it will pass. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used the wrong source for that "He often devised" bit - the Niver source says that. I'll try to fix this as soon as I can. Thanks for the review. (BTW, I can upload the Billboard ad to Commons.) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great if you could include that ad in this article! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added the Billboard advertisement. Updated the Lubin photo's publication history. The "devised stories" cite is corrected. Any other concerns? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions. It's all fine now. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]