Talk:The Sea Urchin (1913 film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Good888 (talk · contribs) 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I am going to review ALL of the films you have listed at the good article nominations page. It may take more than seven days so please be patient. good888 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Lead section
- Link hunchback under kyphosis.
- "The film is now considered lost." Suggest rewriting to: "The film is presumed lost"
Production
- "and distributed by The Universal Film Manufacturing Company." Should be linked under Universal Studios.
- "The film's production number was 0101." Do you have a source confirming this?
Release and legacy
- "Link picturesque.
- "In an advertisement in Rushville, Indiana the filmw" I have removed that w.
Going to place on hold for now. good888 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Good888: - Fixes done. And bit of a note, the Universal Studios and its earlier incarnation are different in a sense, but the article for that does not exist yet. Silent Era covers the production code - so I didn't cite it directly at the end of each sentence because of all the information being reflected by that same source. The Films of Lon Chaney confirms it - but I suspect that it came from Braff's work, which also confirms. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Gave this article another look and found no issues. Hence, I am passing. good888 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Good888: - Fixes done. And bit of a note, the Universal Studios and its earlier incarnation are different in a sense, but the article for that does not exist yet. Silent Era covers the production code - so I didn't cite it directly at the end of each sentence because of all the information being reflected by that same source. The Films of Lon Chaney confirms it - but I suspect that it came from Braff's work, which also confirms. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)