Talk:Army of the Dead/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and the nominator, Some Dude From North Carolina, has both written some great GAs and excellent GA reviews. I'll start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 96.1% of authorship is one user, Some Dude From North Carolina. It is currently ranked a C class article, assessed on 25 March July 2021 by Some Dude From North Carolina. It was also nominated as a GA at the same time but that was withdrawn on 29 May due to "high levels of vandalism". There has been minor editing since then.


 * Images are tagged with appropriate licenses under Creative Commons apart from the poster, which is Fair Use.
 * The page has been checked with Writix, which confirms content is free of plagiarism.
 * There are a few newspapers listed. Please confirm that they meet WP:NMEDIA.
 * ✅ They do. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There are a few websites lised, incljuding CinemaBlend, GamesRadar+ and Polygon. Please confirm that they meet WP:RELIABLE.
 * ✅ via WP:RSP discussions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a citation in the Infobox. Consider removing these in line with WP:INFOBOXREF and adding a referenced mention in the main body.
 * ✅ Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In the Infobox, the budget is listed as $70–90 million but in the text $70 million. Please reconcile these.
 * ✔️ #Development says "it was announced that Netflix had given the film a $90 million production budget" and in #Casting it says "the production budget [was] now reported at $70 million." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The document does seem to have been quite volatile, particularly with regard to reversions. Please confirm it is stable.
 * ✅ It is. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Great work. Please ping me when you would like me to complete the assessment. simongraham (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ready. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.
 * Pass simongraham (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)