Talk:The Lucky Shot

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lucky Shot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through this now and will finish this soon JAGUAR  12:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I would strongly recommend cutting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced

   I think the lead focuses too much on the plot and not enough is mentioned about the production/reception (whatever it covered on it anyway!)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

As before, this one meets the GA criteria so I'll promote it now. Well done JAGUAR  15:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)