Talk:Greed (1924 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to do this review--as it happens, I've both read this book and seen the movie. I hope to begin tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose

Some minor prose issues to clarify--my apologies in advance that some of these are nitpicky.

• "This is the beginning of a lifelong rift between the pair" --clarify the "pair" here--you mean Schouler and McT, yes?
• " later claims to have found still water in their basement" --in the basement of their apartment building? Or in the home they inspect? The "their" is ambiguous here.
• "This begins to be an issue for McTeague" --a vague sentence that could be clarified.
• "Norris once stated "Fiction is what seems real, not what is real."" --This sentence seems out of place in this paragraph. Was he speaking specifically about McTeague? If not, why is the sentence relevant to understanding McTeague, or Stroheim's adapation of it? I'd suggest either giving more context or cutting out the line.
• "many former friends of Frank Norris" leaves it unclear if Norris is dead or simply unpopular.
• "ZaSu Pitts" is spelled three different ways in the course of the article (ZaSu, Zasu, Zazu)
• Linking of actors' names seems excessive; Hersholt, Gowland, and others are linked repeatedly.
• "in appalling conditions" is slightly POV; this could probably be expressed without the judgement. ("harsh"?) -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I took care of all these. I never noticed that ZaSu Pitts was spelled differently. I just got rid of that quote, I agree that it didn't go anywhere. Great suggestions, thank you. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to those so fast! I've got only one more for you:

• "10 Greatest Films ever made" and "The Most Important and Misappreciated American Films of all time" --capitalization seems irregular on these--is it correct that only part of the list titles be capitalized?

I've completed my first close read-through, and it looks good. I never realized what a funny guy von Stroheim was. I'll start the checklist in a bit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Evaluation

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.	Prose is clear and straightforward, and spelling and grammar are correct ; only remaining issue is the capitalization of two lists (noted above). Sources are almost all off-line, but spot checks against Google Book snippets, and checks of the few Internet sources, reveal no issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes.
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.	Article is thoroughly sourced to scholars in the field.
	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).	Citation is excellent and consistent.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See 2a.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes. The article balances the film's claims to greatness with its harsher critics, and clearly sources each to critics or scholars.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes.
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.	Yes.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and well-chosen. but the captions require a bit of wikilinking for concepts, places, etc.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations on a solid Good Article. This one was a pleasure to review.

Done and done, great ideas. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)