Talk:Wall Street (1987 film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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 Production and origins section, "After the success of Platoon" ---> "After the success of Platoon (1986)", so that it can provide context for the reader. In the Principal photography section, "...and to get the used to the fast rhythm of the film's dialogue", there's something odd with that sentence. There needs to be a consistency with "well received" and "well-received".- Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check.
- Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Plot section, "Gekko tells him he'll think about what Bud has told him" ---> "Gekko tells him he will think about what Bud has told him", per here. Same section, the hyphens needs to be dashes. Same section, since this is an American article, it'd be best that "rumours" be "rumors". In the Principal photography section, please link "breath control" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. In the Themes section, "The defense of greed is a paraphrase of the May 18, 1986 commencement address" ---> "The defense of greed is a paraphrase of the May 18, 1986, commencement address", commas after dates, if using MDY. Same section, it would be best if "archetype" was linked just once. In the Reaction section, "Wall Street was released on December 11, 1987 in 730 theaters" ---> "Wall Street was released on December 11, 1987, in 730 theaters". Same section, in Jay Scott's review, the quote shouldn't have quotation marks within quotations, per here. Same section, "In the Reception section, the Owen Gleiberman review, the two hyphens should be changed to a spaced en-dash or unspace em-dash, for more on that go here.- Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check.
- Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
You might want to update the link to Reference 20. In Ref. 27, "Kiplinger's personal finance" needs to be "Kiplinger's Personal Finance". Ref. 31 needs to be properly formatted like the other sources. Refs. 1, 5, 28, 29, and 37 have different url link paths, so you might want to update that. It seems as though Ref. 36 doesn't work.- Fixed. Altho, some refs' links looked OK, I did replace them with ones that were listed in the Checklinks. I did have one question: what does "High link to text ratio" mean? The link still works.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check, and I ended up updating a couple of the url links. I have no idea, I've been puzzled with a couple of Forbes links.
- Fixed. Altho, some refs' links looked OK, I did replace them with ones that were listed in the Checklinks. I did have one question: what does "High link to text ratio" mean? The link still works.--J.D. (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you to J.D. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)