Talk:Alexander IRL/GA1

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

Reviewer: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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): Improvements needed to meet grammar and prose requirements.
 * b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): due to layout - I'd advise the statements of the cast members about their roles be moved into a new section, entitled "Characters".  That could go under Production or be stand-alone. Also to be taken under consideration is merging "Release" and "Production", as the distinction between the two here isn't abundantly clear. I'd also standardize whether you want to portray companies or people writing for them as giving reviews of the movie.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section):
 * b (citations to reliable sources): Variety is the best source here, it should be expanded. Bustle and Youtube aren't great, those should be phased out wherever possible. Inline citation to Common Sense Media is also good. Citation of MSN is extremely shaky.
 * c (OR): None found.
 * d (copyvio and plagiarism): thin ice - some of the quotations are just copied and attributed with breakup in between. Seems fine. Other than that, no copyright problems found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): This article has a lot of room for expansion - other reviews, cast on characters, etc.
 * b (focused): Focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail - but also leaving out some very necessary detail.
 * There's more to write - expand the article!
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Not sure why the two logos of the disagreeing companies are necessary to include in an image that way. Second image fails pertinence test. First image seems fine, though.
 * It is possible that relevant media isn't available - a quick search reveals nothing. Nonetheless, the media work here needs improvement.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: I noticed the article is rated as C-class; that seems accurate, although it's on the low C end. This article needs grammar cleanup, expansion on characters and other sections, and fixes to follow the MOS layout style. Definitely don't get discouraged! You put in a lot of effort and it shows. Keep working at it, renominate once you think you've got it down, and we'll take a look again!