Talk:Birdy (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bluesphere (talk · contribs) 16:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hiya mate, happy to review this one:

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is indeed well-written, good job! Just a few things:

• Under "Filming" section: Parker originally planned to shoot the entire film in Northern California—based on pleasurable experiences while filming Shoot the Moon (1982) in San Francisco—before visiting the actual Philadelphia locations described in the novel., please substitute those em dashes with the {{em dash}} template.

• Under "Release" section, I would rename "Home video" to "Home media".

• Under "References" section, I would change "Citations" to "Notes"; and "Further reading" to "Bibliography".

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A couple of things:

• I would change the inline citation #6's "publisher" parameter to "website" as you're referencing from the director's official website.

• * Not done cite #6's still the same, but I notice the change has been made to #5.

• Could you give the pages on each of the content supported by Citation #11? This is very important. If you're able to find them, add it in that ref. Also, I would apply the same cite style (the Harvard referencing style) you use in cite #18 & 28 for consistency. I also notice that Cite #13 and 14 are not observing that cite style either, I would change that.

• *Under "Critical reception", Jeffrey M. Anderson of The San Francisco Examiner wrote that Birdy was "A haunting film with fine performances and a great Peter Gabriel score. I prefer using WP:THIRDPARTY source for this claim. Sourcing Rotten Tomatoes for critic reviews is as unreliable as citing IMDb.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Putting this one on hold until issues have been addressed.

Comments

Thank you, Bluesphere (talk, for taking on the article. I was unable to find page numbers for Citation #11, just the chapter of the book. Apart from that, I have adressed the other issues made in your review.FrankRizzo (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I see. Well, I won't be too strict about it. However, I believe there's a teeny-tiny issue left on 1.a. Also, I forgot that the "Accolades" table could use another column for the references, please add and name it Ref(s). You finish these, this one's good to go. Bluesphere 05:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Done! FrankRizzo (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

There ya go, passed! Bluesphere 06:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article's fact about the Skycam is worth pursuing for a DYK nomination. Anyway, congratulations! Bluesphere 06:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Bluesphere, for reviewing the article, and passing it to GA status! FrankRizzo (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)