Talk:The Stolen Invention/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll take another. I just can't help myself JAGUAR  21:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD

   Nothing on the Production in the lead, despite the section being scarce the lead must summarise, even if it's minor

   The plot summary in the lead is quite extensive

   "The girl's sweetheart, Tom, is a lawyer" - sweetheart? "Lover" would sound more formal

   "Reception for this film was mixed, but not praised highly in the three main trade publications" - how about "viewed negatively"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I can't put this on hold, the points are too minor and thus this meets the GA criteria. It would benefit from a copyedit though JAGUAR  14:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)