Talk:Never Say Never Again/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk • contribs • count) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (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.	There are a number of quite long run-on sentences, especially in the lead, which are and a bit confusing to read. e.g. Connery had been the first actor to portray Bond in a motion picture, in 1962's Dr. No, but he left the franchise in 1971 after his participation in the string of commercially successful films, interrupted by George Lazenby's brief portrayal of Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. You've got embedded quotes going on in this piece here which is somewhat confusing: with "Title "Never Say Never Again" By: Micheline Connery". This is a personal thing, the MoS doesn't have anything to say about it but I'm not a big fan of asides in brackets, e.g. (When Fleming left the Court in 1963 he said: "I feel Bond would have done something to liven it up...like shooting the judge.") in production, or (and getting) in cast and crew. I believe this makes reading the article harder. The article is consistent in the US of UK spelling, except that there is one instance of US-style spelling in the text "realize" in the quote in reflective reviews. Maybe that is because the reviewer or source for the quote was American though.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section is a little too long and too detailed (e.g. using the example sentence above, we don't need to know about GL in the lead section) I checked online references and there is no copyvio content included
	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).	The article is well referenced, quite a number aren't readily verifiable as they refer to books, those that are online sources are reliable and appropriate. Reference #42, the IGN.COM link redirects to another site according to Checklinks, although this isn't a major issue
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I know that you mention DVD's in the legacy, but I noticed that information about when things were released on VHS/DVD/Bluray was absent, as is anything about television broadcasts.
	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.	All are appropriate, and tagged appropriately. If anything, the article could do with a few more images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, I think this article is definitely of at least GA quality - well done to all editors, especially Schrodinger's cat is alive and Betty Logan who seem to have done the heavy lifting.

I would have to say that the edits made over the last few days have certainly improved the article; particulalry the led. I do however note that none of the pictures seem to have Alt Text, this isn't a GA requirement but is encouraged. I would also add that some sections could possibly do with being shortened; the contempory reviews could probably lose a paragraph and the second paragraph in the reflective reviews could afford to lose a sentence or two. Other than those few minor things I think the article is very well written, flows smoothly and should meet GA standards. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)