Talk:A Bug's Life/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jionpedia (talk · contribs) 12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A very well-written article. Good enough to promote.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Don't get it delisted! Thanks, --Jionpedia  ✉  12:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a comment from a passerby, but I'm concerned about the speed of the above review; while this obviously a high-quality article, it's rare to have a GA with zero action points, passed the moment it's opened, and I can see issues in the article just at a glance-- for example, the garbled quotation marks in "Peter Stack of the San Francisco Chronicle gave the film four out of four stars, saying 'A Bug's Life' is one of the great movies -- a triumph of storytelling and character development, and a whole new ballgame for computer animation. Pixar Animation Studios has raised the genre to an astonishing new level"
 * And more significantly, the empty sections under "Awards" and "Video game". The award nominations in particular seem like a major aspect that need to be covered here. Can these be addressed? Thanks to everybody working on this one, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks for notifying.Jionpedia  ✉  14:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your swift attention to it. A glance at some other sections didn't show any more immediate problems--overall it does really seem like good stuff--so I don't think a reassessment is called for. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a recent discussion on the talk page regarding the soundtrack section, as it pertains to MoS compliance. Perhaps you'd like to weigh in explicitly to help resolve the debate. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)