Talk:Never Let Me Go (2010 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• "played by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield." could add a "respectively" to clarify position.

done

• "It opened the 54th London Film Festival." This sentence seems brusque and dislodges the prose and lovely flow of the previous sentences, try incorporating it into another.

done

• "Onscreen"... "on-screen".

done

• Kiera Knightly is appallingly misspelt! Keira Knightley is her name. Sheesh.

done

• Link to Hailsham. Links for the plot section have been noted below...

done

• "...our relationship to our own mortality" their relationship.

done

• In themes the "she explains" reads like a news story, the sentence is fine without it.

done

• "said Macdonald and Reich" again news story

done

• "The script for the film is 96 pages long, done in chapters." Was. We are speaking past tense here.

done

• "Never Let Me Go.[7] Never Let Me Go" x2 doesn't look good.

done

• "Many of the scenes in the film feature a certain tree – which Location Manager Josh Yudkin predicts will become famous." Could be either ref or remove that, because it almost seems like vandalism without a source...

It actually is lol. I've removed it.

• "Her work on Never Let Me Go earned her a San Diego Film Critics Society Award for Best Score." Needs a ref.

done

• Remove the appalling image of Andrew Garfield being interviewed that is taken at an bad and odd angle from an old telly.

done

• Ref 15's date is incorrectly formatted. As is 41.

I've fixed 15. I'm not sure what's wrong with ref 41. I think you meant ref 40 (which I've also now fixed)

• Ref 48 doesn't have a retrieved date.

done

Overall notes

• The summary contains information that is referenced below but that are not provided in the summary, try taking a few references from sentences underneath and plugging them into the main.

But aren't plot sections allowed to be unsourced.......

• The plot section contains only one link and looks about as barren as the film was! Try bluing it up with the cast members hyperlinks. Looking further, the Themes and Box office sections need some linkage too.

lol done

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is fab, really brilliantly written, but needs a few changes here and there for MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): --> b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some references need format changes, but everything else is okay.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Perfic'.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Perfic'

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Perfic'.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Perfic'. Except remove the detrimental Andrew Garfield screenshot image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a brilliant article and it was a good film, with a little work this should make GA no problem.

That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: Brilliant! Just one more thing: I was speaking of the summary, not the plot, the very first bit, where it explains the topic. Do that small thing and I'll pass the article. Good work! That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohh, the lead? I'm quite certain though that there are not suppose to be refs in the lead =/ (sources are suppose to be used in the body of the article as the lead is just a quick summary) Crystal Clear x3 02:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay, well it's passed then. Haha. Grats! That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)