Talk:Young Lord Stanley

Young Lord Stanley 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: June 17, 2015. (Reviewed version).

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:Young Lord Stanley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half way through the sweep JAGUAR 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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 names in the Cast section are not in the lead
" improvement from works like The Two Roses" -such as
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.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
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. Do my eyes, deceive me, this film isn't lost? JAGUAR 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]