Talk:Uncle David/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article North8000 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's nice to know ahead of time that there is someone here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

One suggestion, you might want to explain what is meant by "caravan" because the term does not have that meaning / has a different meaning in American English. I had to look it up to see what the intended meaning was and I still only sort of know. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a glimpse in the movie trailer. I think that the facility is what we call a "trailer park" in the US, and the building a "mobile home". North8000 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a "caravan park" would be a "trailer park" in the U.S. I shall insert links that should clarify this, although believe that we should probably retain British spelling and terminology in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Agree. My point was strictly a matter of clarifying/communicating, not of changing the British spelling and terminology. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice any information on the degree of success of this movie. Would such be relevant & available? North8000 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If such information was available, then I'm sure that it would be relevant, but unfortunately I do not think that it does exist. This was a pretty low key, underground film, and I think that it only screened at a few select festivals rather than being shown in mainstream British cinemas. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sourcable way to communicate what you just said? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think that there is. Certainly, I never came across any such source when I was putting together this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. OK, thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. The article is short on coverages on degree of distribution and commercial success, but it appears that such information is not known to be available for sources. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Article has 3 images. All are non-free, all have article-specific use rationales. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. My one suggestion is to be on the lookout for informaiton to add regarding the film's degree of distribution and commercial success. (see above). Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]