Talk:The Commitments (film)/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. This article is quite long and finishing up a GA Review will take me quite a while - so patience please. Shearonink (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Well-done - no POV-words or puffery regarding the film or its cast/crew. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Ref 48 & 49 - handshake failures, the links don't seem valid. Please fix. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the Checklink says those aren't working...they are and they're fine. All the Rotten Tomatoes links are good. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
And thanks to whomever had anything to do with getting that wonderful photo of Alan Parker. Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@FrankRizzo2006:Thanks to FrankRizzo2006 for his adjustments to the article. I am going do another read-through to see if I missed anything and then will probably be able to finish up this review. Shearonink (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat premature when i placed a yes at the Pass or Fail parameter a day ago because I hadn't had a chance to check the changes but I have now gone through the article, the requested edits have been made, and in this Reviewer's opinion this article is now a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cult film"

This term is mentioned twice - once in the lead section and once in Legacy and aftermath, but the term is not sufficiently defined and sourced in terms of the film. I think the term needs to be explored a little more in-depth since being a cult film - its continued popularity - is one of the movie's claims to notability. Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improved wording - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Do you think this section should maybe be called "Bibliography" or "Sources"? Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Readthroughs

On the whole this article seems to be in pretty good shape. I do need to do several more readthroughs to find anything I've missed - spelling, grammar, punctuation, tone, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

Congrats to FrankRizzo2006 for his work to get the article to GA status and many thanks for Shearonink for your help and assistance. Now lets put the DVD on and sing "Mustang Sally" with the cast. MarnetteD|Talk 03:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.