Talk:Their Child/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Continuing my sweep JAGUAR  16:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD

   Nothing on the Production in the lead, despite the section being scarce the lead must summarise, even if it's minor

   The plot summary in the lead is quite extensive

   Is the list of people in the production sentence a definite list of people who worked on the film? The lead says otherwise

   The lead could be expanded a little in order to summarise

   " Marie Eline played the role of "their child" and was likely so well disguised that the reviewer for The Nickelodeon believed her to be a boy" - how does being disguised make her look like a boy? 1910 people...

   " Mrs. George Walters" in production should have "Mrs" removed

   " In 1917, years after its release" - no need for this

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well researched and well written, once again. Nothing major so it can be put on hold. I am passing this on the grounds of good research. JAGUAR  19:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)