Talk:West Side Story (2021 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 00:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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.	Well-written and correct spelling/grammar. The plot section contains a good synopsis that summarizes the film well.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good lead section that summarizes the people involved in the film, a short timeline of the film's production, and the film's box office performance and awards/accolades. I found no words to watch, nor are there any embedded lists in the article. Very nicely written!
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.	Correctly formatted references section.
	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).	Uses reliable sources throughout, including lots of news article. These articles mostly come from Variety, Box Office Mojo, Deadline Hollywood, and Playbill. Primary sources include the press kit, a book by Laurent Bouzereau about the behind-the-scenes of the film that featured multiple interviews with the cast and crew, and a number of social media posts from the cast, like this one. Citations, especially ones beside quotes, all contain the actual information listed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research as I can see it. Most notably, all claims in the "reception" section about the quality of the film are direct quotations from review sites and articles.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	All quotations are properly cited. The images/videos in the article that are directly from the film (here and here) have properly displayed non-free use rationale.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses the plot, cast, production, music, release, reception, and also talks about the differences between the film and stage versions. Comparing it to other Good Articles about movies, these topics are relevant across all of them, and this article does a good job of summarizing each section. The addition of the "Differences between film and stage versions" section is, in my opinion, a good section that stays within the scope. Comparing the stage and film versions help the reader understand the differences and also justifies why these things are different using quotes from the filmmakers.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Summarizes each section's topic well.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral in all sections, especially with controversial sections like "censorship" and "representation of Puerto Ricans". These are controversial topics, but these sections only quote reviews/comments from a number of sources without going into personal opinion. Well done!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable; past 10 edits were spaced apart and unrelated.
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.	All media (including the non-free use media listed above, under 2d) have correctly displayed copyright statuses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images used are relevant to their sections and their captions summarize it's relevance well.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, this article was very well written, the citations are proper, and the media is relevant and correct. Very nice job!