Talk:Ned Manning/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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 lead, "...whose film credits include the lead role in Dead End Drive-In and an appearance in the teen film Looking for Alibrandi" ---> "...whose film credits include the lead role in Dead End Drive-In (1986) and an appearance in the teen film Looking for Alibrandi (2000)", so that it can provide context for the reader. Same section, the lead, there's too much repetition of "Manning", you should probably have a consistency with that. In the Playwright section, it wouldn't hurt to say that Bryce Hallett wrote that review in the Sydney Morning Herald. In the Television, film and directing section, this is just me, but maybe adding Quentin Tarantino's nationality and title might help. Same section, "The script (not by manning)" ---> "The script (not by Manning)".- All done, other than the Hallett thing - he's already mentioned in the case of the review that was by him - different authors did other reviews. Not sure if you meant wikilink him, in which case i'm pretty sure it is not the same Bryce Hallett. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check, and it's fine with the whole Hallett thing, I just thought it would help to say where he was writing from.
- OK, added that. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check, and it's fine with the whole Hallett thing, I just thought it would help to say where he was writing from.
- All done, other than the Hallett thing - he's already mentioned in the case of the review that was by him - different authors did other reviews. Not sure if you meant wikilink him, in which case i'm pretty sure it is not the same Bryce Hallett. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
"Braidwood Times" in Reference 9 should be in the "work" format of the source, since it is a newspaper. In Ref. 3 it seems as though the link to "Spotlight on Australia's past" doesn't exist.- Done. Delinked that ref - added another one, but the delinked ref is the only one i have for the parents being married, and for there being one sibling, so keeping as an offline ref. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine, but now another problem ensues. Ref. 16 is dead.
- No alternative refs, and not archived at archive.org: the sentence and ref are now gone. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Check.
- No alternative refs, and not archived at archive.org: the sentence and ref are now gone. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fine, but now another problem ensues. Ref. 16 is dead.
- Done. Delinked that ref - added another one, but the delinked ref is the only one i have for the parents being married, and for there being one sibling, so keeping as an offline ref. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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):
- 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:
- 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:
- Are there no free images of Manning available?
- Not that I have been able to find. Just not a very significant figure... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are there no free images of Manning available?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you to hamiltonstone 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) 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)