Talk:Al Pacino/GA1

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

Reviewer: Artoasis (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I like the prose of this article very much. The only quibble I had is with some of the word choices in the lede.
 * — "He is most famed for playing mobsters"; The word "most" has a POV tone. May I suggest you remove it? ✅
 * — "His love of Shakespeare caused him to direct his first film with Looking for Richard"; The word "cause" often indicates to make something bad happen. Can you replace it with "led"? ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Unreliable source: TMZ ✅ replaced
 * Unsourced sentences:
 * — "In 1966, after many previous unsuccessful attempts, Pacino successfully auditioned at the Actors Studio." ✅
 * — "The film received mainly positive reviews (?) with Janet Maslin in The New York Times writing..." ✅ rewritten in line with a ref
 * — "Pacino's film festival-screened Chinese Coffee earned good notices." Is there a review we can use as ref? ✅
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think the article is in very good shape for GA. But since I am very new to this review process, you will most likely need a second opinion. Best luck.
 * All the issues raised during the review process have been properly addressed. I believe this article has reached the GA status. Congratulations. - Artoasis (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think the article is in very good shape for GA. But since I am very new to this review process, you will most likely need a second opinion. Best luck.
 * All the issues raised during the review process have been properly addressed. I believe this article has reached the GA status. Congratulations. - Artoasis (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a second opinion on this review, I've had a look through it. Everything seems to check out alright. I'd like to see a sentence or two under the "awards" header summing up the major award he's received, but that's the only thing and it's very minor. If I was reviewing this article, I'd have passed it, but if you'd like another opinion, that's alright. GRAPPLE  X  23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for the input. I had never really thought about adding a line or two under the awards section but your definitely right it would be nice to see.  I will get onto it.  Cheers Monkeymanman (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave the article a more thorough look, and fixed some of the problems I spotted. Now there is only one notable unsourced sentence left. I'm ready to pass this article once it's fixed. Cheers. - Artoasis (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * okay rewritten it plus a ref from variety. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)