Talk:The Net (1923 film)

The Net (1923 film) 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.
Review: March 5, 2019. (Reviewed version).

A fact from The Net (1923 film) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Cleveland film critic said the acting in the 1923 film The Net "doesn't warrant complimentary adjectives"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Net (1923 film).

Wikipedia

Film: Silent / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Net (1923 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:36, 5 March 2019 (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:
I made a few copy edits. Please review them for accuracy and revise as you see fit.

"she is not believed to have appeared" - who believes this? They should be identified inline.

Credited inline to the AFI. I've also reworded that sentence in general because it was awful. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
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:
no concern

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:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern per earwig
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
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:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There's one issue I couldn't address myself. Otherwise, this is in good shape and I'll pass it once the concern is explained or revised.
Thanks for the quick response. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]