Talk:Unicorn (Tintin)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll make it snappy and quick. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• I feel it should be expanded to at least two paragraphs (the current para remaining as it is and the second para explaining about Sir Francis's Battle with Red Rackham).
  • Fair enough; I have made this improvement; I agree that it was needed. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In The Adventures of Tintin

• "In Hergé's original French version as well as in many international versions," — "many international versions" sounds anonymous. I feel "In Hergé's original French version," would suffice, (even though the international versions may have the same name).
  • I have made this correction. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have made several changes to the article yourself rather than stating them here in the review. I agree that all of your changes are an improvement (with one exception); I appreciate the second pair of eyes. Question: Can you think of a single sentence description of the Unicorn we can add following mention of the 2011 film (in the Fictional history section)? Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Don't need to as Spielberg reproduces that portion as per the book. But, if you insist, we can add that "the difference being that Haddock remembers it while walking through the Sahara desert with Tintin, while in the book, he reads Sir Francis's journal and narrates the story in his apartment to Tintin". — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 06:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that was the difference. I couldn't remember any difference but felt the need to say something. I agree that it isn't worth mentioning anything after all. Prhartcom (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2015‎ (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)