Talk:Persuasion (1995 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 22:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Ew Jane Austin. :(

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is grand. Your prose style could work better though - the cast list is almost-halfway made up of redlinks which could be culled, for instance, and the awards section could have a prose introduction to the list.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Sources all seem grand and are used well.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems grand, doesn't stray too wide or narrow.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is fine, not an issue here.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History is good and stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are grand. One is fair use which checks out, the other is free from commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All things toted up, I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. I still think the Cast section could do with a trimming down, though, as redlinks for actors in tiny roles is essentially a form of cruft.