Talk:Mother (1910 film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I will review. Give me a couple days. Freikorp (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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:
- The only issue I can see here is the lead. First why not two paragraphs instead of one large one? Also the sentence "The film is a melodrama that focuses with Will Allen who runs away from home after being violently abused by his stepfather and his mother keeps a candle lit for him to return home" strikes me as a bit run-off ish (starting from the information about his mother), and just doesn't read well. Suggest breaking into at least two sentences. The plot summary in the lead seems more detailed than any other i've read before, but i'm still happy to pass the article on that alone.
- A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- The article relies extremely heavily on the official website of the film's production company, but given the the age of the film, I think that is acceptable.
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Q. David Bowers is not working directly for the Thanhouser Company - which went defunct 97 years ago - though the historical preservation one does have a family connection. The key point of Bowers use is that it pulls all the very difficult to get sources from the contemporary era directly together for easy use. Otherwise I would have been pulling from the other sources directly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
@ChrisGualtieri: Very close. Have a look at my suggestions and tell me what you think. I'm sure I will be passing this shortly. Freikorp (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay @Freikorp: - I answered both the questions and split the lead, but then chopped it down because it was too detailed. So its back to one paragraph, but it is much shorter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Great work. I'm passing it. :) Freikorp (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay @Freikorp: - I answered both the questions and split the lead, but then chopped it down because it was too detailed. So its back to one paragraph, but it is much shorter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)