Talk:Young Lord Stanley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Half way through the sweep JAGUAR  14:47, 17 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

   Is the list of people in the production sentence a definite list of people who worked on the film? The lead says otherwise

   The names in the Cast section are not in the lead

   1. " improvement from works like The Two Roses" -such as

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.

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:

Well researched and well written, once again. Nothing major so it can be put on hold. I am passing this on the grounds of good research. Do my eyes, deceive me, this film isn't lost? JAGUAR  21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)