 | A Dog's Love has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 2, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from A Dog's Love appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:A Dog's Love/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll have this done soon JAGUAR 16:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Initial comments edit
- "Well-received because of its "universally appealing" theme, the dog's emotions were reported as surpassing the child's histrionics." - a quite choppy opening sentence. I would rephrase this to It was well received from critics because of its "universally appealing" theme and the dog's emotions were reported as surpassing the child's histrionics or something similar to that?
- I don't agree on that one haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The film was shot on one reel by the Thanhouser Company" - I would link Thanhouser here
- There is nothing on plot in the lead
- OK added a sentence.
- "Next Baby Helen goes to tea party" - comma after "next"
- added.
- Vitagraph is linked twice in the Production section
- Removed.
- ""exception."" in the Reception section should be in single quotes as the thing itself is in a quote
- Done.
- " The film would be released in Thanhouser Classics Volume II: Under the Mutual Banner 1912-1914" - would be or has it already been released?
- Done.
References edit
@Jaguar: Cheers for the review, addressed what I could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
On hold edit
What a beautiful film! I watched it after writing the review, so moving and it portrays more emotions than most modern films do. Regarding the article, I think the lead is too short and could summarise better, but other than that I could only find minor prose issues. 
JAGUAR 11:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it does summarise it well though. I don't think there's much more we can really say. I've given some critical opinion of it. You'd expect it to be short because it's a short article, even if comprehensive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
