Talk:Look Mickey/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 04:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Lead is a bit short. Could it be expanded upon a bit more?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Details --> Description
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Critical review --> Reception
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Look Mickey is broad comedy and falls into the category of slapstick..." --> Who said this quote?
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The work is also considered reflexive. --> What is reflexive?
- I think I am trying to say the artist is painting about himself. Did I word it incorrectly?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Was actually not aware of that word before now. Should link it to Reflexivity (social theory); I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Statυs (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure that is the proper link, so I expanded the prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Overall, the article is well written and well sourced. No other issues from those stated above.