Talk:Quantum of Solace/GA1
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
What is a good article? edit
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- Verifiable with no original research:
- (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
- (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);[2] and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Notes edit
- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
- ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Comments edit
1. Well written:
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; 
and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Lead seems a bit short for the length of the article.
- Lead now OK
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
(c) it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
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 images:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Initial inspection. Well, it looks impressive. Of the four articles I've just taken onto my plate for reviewing for GA, this looks the best. Lots of cites, from varied sources, and online so easily and quickly checked. A good layout. A range of sections. Lots of detail. Good balance. Prose is readable and interesting. Lead may be a bit short. Article appears to be fairly neutral. There is some minor IP nuisance, though that is typical of articles which are on topics currently in the public eye. There is nothing serious going on. Article has been in existence since 2005, with User:Alientraveller taking a firm hand over a prolonged period, and currently still involved. This might be a fairly quick review. I look forward to getting stuck into this tomorrow. SilkTork *YES! 02:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Concerns arising:
- Lead section doesn't cover all aspects of the article. In particular the response and box office sections are not mentioned at all.
- There are four references sourced to The Hollywood Reporter which requires an annual subscription of £299 to view the sources.
- The opening paragraph of the Filming section uses short, choppy sentences. This could be rewritten to flow more attractively.
- The entire Filming section needs attention. It could be trimmed - the paragraph on Carlos Lopez for example, seems trivial and excessive. Much of the information could be condensed into a more flowing, attractive and less trivial prose.
- Addressing issues.
- I have expanded the lead, so I am now OK with that.
- Hollywood Reporter referencing is problematic because of the need to subscribe, though is allowable.
- Rewritten opening paragraph of Filming. Now OK.
- Trimmed the paragraph on Carlos Lopez. Now OK.
- Conclusion.
Article meets requirements for a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 12:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)