Talk:Ciutat Morta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ciutat Morta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far, the article is improved for it. I've answered everything with some queries, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re "expanding #Production to meet the third criteria" I added some lines yesterday and I've added some more today from the last review I found. I've also put in the academic analysis that was previously in further reading. I don't think this film will ever have a production section the size of say Blade Runner 2049, I'm happy the main aspects are covered. Back to you, thanks! Mujinga (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Improve the non-free use rationale for the poster with this template.
  • "Poster" → "Promotional release poster"
  • Don't use "<br />" in the infobox. Use "plainlist" instead.
Well, it says on the film infobox template that plainlist is preferred, and it also helps mobile readers.
Those are good reasons, thanks.  Done Mujinga (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, remove the comma after "until 2015".
  • I've read it a few times, I prefer it with the comma. Could rephrase if it's a big issue. Might be a British English / US English thing? Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was that the sentence is kinda short, so a comma wasn't necessary.

Plot[edit]

  • This section is over 400 words, so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
  • Remove the comma after "hit on the head".
  • Add a comma after the first naming of Rodrigo Lanza.
  • in the brackets? I'd rather not add one there Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point; it was an Oxford comma thing.
  • Remove the comma after "Alfredo Pestana".
  • that one seems good to keep since the commas are bracketing the names Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "they looked".
  • i didn't add the comma but i did rephrase since the sentence was clunky Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "son of diplomat" → "son of a diplomat"

Themes[edit]

  • Add a comma after "gentrification".
  • don't see the need for it, we must have different comma styles Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was another Oxford comma thing.
  • Other than that, this section looks good.

Production[edit]

  • "seven-storey" → "seven-story"
  • Add a comma after "Guàrdia Urbana".
  • again, not seeing the need for it Mujinga (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decide" → "decided"
  • This section is extremely short, so try expanding it.
  • I'll have a look to see if there are any more sources since November when I wrote it. Mujinga (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few more lines Mujinga (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • added in the academic analysis from further reading Mujinga (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

  • Add a comma after "June 8, 2013".
  • "action" → "act"
  • "department" → "Department"

Critical response[edit]

  • The word "onesidedness" doesn't sound right, so maybe reword it?
  • went back to the source, rephrased Mujinga (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add more reviews (if possible).
  • I'll have another check although this is all I could find before Mujinga (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • added two more reviews Mujinga (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

  • Remove the comma after "Guàrdia Urbana".
  • i rather keep it, since it provides a space for breath. Mujinga (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a comma after "Cs, PP".

Progress[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·