Talk:Beetlejuice/GA1
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Wildroot in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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 Sequel section, it would be best to mention "Michael Keaton" first and then mention "Keaton" instead of having it the other way around.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- In the Sequel section, it would be best to mention "Michael Keaton" first and then mention "Keaton" instead of having it the other way around.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Reaction section, there's no need for "Metacritic" to be italicized, since its a website. In the Reaction section, "American Film Institute" doesn't need to be italicized.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Reaction section, there's no need for "Metacritic" to be italicized, since its a website. In the Reaction section, "American Film Institute" doesn't need to be italicized.
- 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:
- 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:
- In the Cast section, I did a test preview in which I moved the image to the right and it seems fine. Don't know if that would help out or not.
- 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 above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you to Wildroot 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) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I fixed everything. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)