Talk:Persuasion (1995 film)

Persuasion (1995 film) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Persuasion (1995 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 1, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
May 21, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 17, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that during the 1995 filming of BBC's Persuasion, the crew often had to compete for props and costumes with fellow BBC and Jane Austen adaptation Pride and Prejudice?

Current status: Featured article

Film: British FA‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Persuasion (1995 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Ew Jane Austin. :(

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is grand. Your prose style could work better though - the cast list is almost-halfway made up of redlinks which could be culled, for instance, and the awards section could have a prose introduction to the list.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Sources all seem grand and are used well.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope seems grand, doesn't stray too wide or narrow.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrality is fine, not an issue here.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
History is good and stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are grand. One is fair use which checks out, the other is free from commons.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All things toted up, I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. I still think the Cast section could do with a trimming down, though, as redlinks for actors in tiny roles is essentially a form of cruft.

I don't know if I'm allowed to add this here, but I came to say this article is extraordinarily detailed and beautifully written. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Well done!124.171.112.25 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]