Talk:Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Plot, "Willy's employees", shouldn't it be "Wonka's employees"? In the Development section, ""I tried to find kids who had something of the character in them. Mike Teavee was the hardest," director Tim Burton explained", no need to mention Burton's first name. This is me, but in the Awards section, this sentence ---> "Gabriella Pescucci was nominated the Academy Award for Best Costume Design", reads odd.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Plot, the hyphens needs to be dashes. In the Development section, why is Roald Dahl's daughter name linked?Same section, "...but he faced scheduling conflicts and contractual obligations with Minority Report and The Lookout" ---> "...but he faced scheduling conflicts and contractual obligations with Minority Report (2002) and The Lookout (2007)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Same section, "He had previously produced another of the author's adaptations with James and the Giant Peach" ---> "He had previously produced another of the author's adaptations with the 1996 feature James and the Giant Peach" or something like that.Same section, link "1971 film adaption" once.In the Filming section, "The Wonka Factory exterior was coincidentally constructed on the same backlot Burton had used for Gotham City in Batman" ---> "The Wonka Factory exterior was coincidentally constructed on the same backlot Burton had used for Gotham City in the 1989 feature Batman". In the Music section, dates aren't supposed to be linked.In the Development section, you have "1971 film adaptation" linked twice. Either unlink it or replace it with Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, in the second occurrence, since its obvious what you're talking about in the beginning of the section.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- Are there sources available for the Music section?
- Check.
- Are there sources available for the Music section?
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Not very good, per the article's history page.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Concerns are almost finished. Promise to have them all addressed later tonight. Thanks for reviewing. Wildroot (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Amazing! Igordebraga fixed the Music section. Also, the edit war has been fixed. The King of Australia kept adding weird original research. As a result, Wikipedian administrators blocked him from editing completely (check out the talk page). This article is now ready! Wildroot (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad Igordebraga fixed the Music section. :) Yeah, from the article's history, everything seems to be calm now. It is. Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Amazing! Igordebraga fixed the Music section. Also, the edit war has been fixed. The King of Australia kept adding weird original research. As a result, Wikipedian administrators blocked him from editing completely (check out the talk page). This article is now ready! Wildroot (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)