Talk:Presto (film)/GA1
Note for GA reviewer
[edit]The reception section will probably raise comments about expansion, but I honestly am not sure if it can be done in a good manner. Keep in mind that this is a short film, and reviews from established film critics are very rare for this sort of thing. It might be possible to mash something up by digging out comments on Presto from reviews for WALL-E, but this seems iffy to me.--Remurmur (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I read your note, it's true, however, Cornucopia seems to have added some reviews, and the reception section seems fine now. Below are my comments:
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- What's with the academy award sentence in the reception section, I don't get it. If the film is submitted for the award than there should be a reliable source to prove it, if you can't find one it should be deleted.
Also, it seems a bit strange that in the first two paragraphs of the development section you put the reference at the end of each paragraph, while in the third paragraph you put the ref behind each sentence. Either do what you did with the third paragraph in the first two paragraphs, or vica versa, you pick.
- What's with the academy award sentence in the reception section, I don't get it. If the film is submitted for the award than there should be a reliable source to prove it, if you can't find one it should be deleted.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Looks fine, nicely done.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- Well, per MOS:IMAGE, the image of Alec reaching for the carrot should be moved to the right, however, I don't know if this is possible (since there is an infobox on the right side) so perhaps it should be deleted, but I hope you can find another way to keep it (maybe you can move it a little lower).
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Furthermore, nice work, I place the article on hold until the above issues are taken care off. Have a nice day.--Music26/11 15:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I have taken care of most of the issues, and also increased the lead. The only thing I'm having trouble with is the image issue. I don't want to delete it either; do you have any thoughts on how we can fix the problem? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work on the lead, the article looks about ready for GA now. As for the image, that's an annoying problem. I've tried moving it down a bit, but that looked a bit weird, however it seems that it's the only way to keep the image. --Music26/11 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see you have changed the page a bit, it looks fine now. I'm passing the article.--Music26/11 14:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work on the lead, the article looks about ready for GA now. As for the image, that's an annoying problem. I've tried moving it down a bit, but that looked a bit weird, however it seems that it's the only way to keep the image. --Music26/11 01:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)