Talk:Hud (1963 film)/GA2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:22, 10 July 2015

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Improved since last review and is good for GA
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Same as above
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.	same as above
	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).	I have a few questions about the refs: Firstly, NYTimes.com doesn't author the New York Times Instead of writing ".... Staff" in the author parameter I think you should just write "Staff Writer" Convert all your refs to either {{sfn}}s or ref tags. If it has no author you can do this via putting the template {{sfnRef}} In the "
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	good enough
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	good enough
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	good enough
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	good enough
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.	good enough
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	good enough
	7. Overall assessment.

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 **Convert all your refs to either <nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki>s or ref tags. If it has no author you can do this via putting the template <nowiki>{{sfnRef}}</nowiki> In the "|ref" parameter and label the ref what you want to.
 **Three external links have problems
 }}
 <!-- It contains no original research. -->