Talk:Tank Girl (film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
Don't think the cast section was necessary, since the cast is mentioned in the "Plot" Section. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Dup links to basically all people in the "Cast" section |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. 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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
More comments laterOtherwise I think it's okay. A couple months ago, this whole article was somewhat of a mess, but I give a big thanks for you for fixing it.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)- You're right. I removed the cast section and simply added the two members who weren't already mentioned in the plot to that section. This effectively addresses both your concerns, though I think it would be acceptable to have a wikilink in a list (such as a cast section) and also in the prose. Thanks for your review. It was a lot of work but I thoroughly enjoyed overhauling this article. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Passing, well done.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. I removed the cast section and simply added the two members who weren't already mentioned in the plot to that section. This effectively addresses both your concerns, though I think it would be acceptable to have a wikilink in a list (such as a cast section) and also in the prose. Thanks for your review. It was a lot of work but I thoroughly enjoyed overhauling this article. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)