Talk:Americana (1981 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Cast and crew section, "...the film also feature" ---> "...the film also featured", the way it is right now reads odd. Same section, "...whom Carradine met while they both worked on The Long Riders" ---> "...whom Carradine met while they both worked on The Long Riders (1980)", so that it can provide context for the reader. In the Inspiration and production section, "...and began a romantic relationship, on the set of Heaven with a Gun" ---> "...and began a romantic relationship, on the set of Heaven with a Gun (1969)".
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Cast and crew section, after "United Artists" add (UA), since you say "U.A.", I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout your reader. Same section, "Around", if a song, isn't supposed to be italicized, instead quotation marks are needed.
Half-check.
Check.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments from Maria

A couple points that also need to be addressed:

Carradine's book, Endless Highway, is used as a source numerous times but page numbers should be listed per WP:CITE. Listing the entire book, which is over 600 pages (!) long, does not help verify the cited info. Use shorthand cites to include each individual page number.
Several of the citations (refs 2, 3 and 4) do not list access/retrieval dates.

I was going to post these comments to the talk page, but noticed that the article was already under GA review. Hope you don't mind me crashing the party, ThinkBlue. :) These points should help the article better fulfill the criteria. María (habla conmigo) 19:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, the more the merrier. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So much for my guarentee.. I'll work on it. I really do not know how to do shorthand cites. Will that keep it from passing?--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is done except the citation. Besides the books length, it also has no index, so this will take a little while.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is done, including the citations. I had to take out the line about Drury, Kansas being the center of the country, because I cannot find the page it is on. But, I added a quote, in the reception and criticism section about the films reception at the Film Festival in Utah. Now I can focus on the review on I Do Do. BelovedFreak has offered to help me with my first review. Take Care.--Ishtar456 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though you got Maria's concerns, which is excellent, but I just have one query left. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I like they way it is now. I'm sorry, I thought I did that. It is done now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Maria for adding her input here, most appreciated, and thank you to Ishtar for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, and to Fuhghettaboutit for expensive assistance. It was more painful than I thought it would be, but worth it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You think this was painful? Ha! It only took one day, and you only had a few things to fix! :) Job well done regardless; like a lot of things, it will be easier next time. María (habla conmigo) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]