Talk:Brenda Blethyn/GA1

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

Reviewer: NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) 21:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Grammar needs a bit of work. "with  ", for example, is not grammatically correct.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * "Acclaimed" and other peacock terms should be replaced with more descriptive and informative text.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * References to the IMDb, which is not a reliable source. Needs more citations to verify awards and critical reception when it is merely asserted without a citation, such the part about A River Runs Through It.
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Currently needs more work. Copy editing will solve most but not all of these problems.  In particular, the referencing for awards and reception needs to be improved.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Currently needs more work. Copy editing will solve most but not all of these problems.  In particular, the referencing for awards and reception needs to be improved.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Currently needs more work. Copy editing will solve most but not all of these problems.  In particular, the referencing for awards and reception needs to be improved.

I left this open for a while, as I thought that I would perhaps get around to fixing it myself. However, after over a week, it seems as though this is not going to happen. I finally cleaned up the grammar a bit and replaced an unreliable source, but there's too much work to be done for me to keep this open indefinitely in the hopes that I or someone else will eventually clean it up. In particular, the sourcing needs to be improved dramatically. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)