Talk:Django Unchained/GA1

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

Reviewer: Metal121 (talk · contribs) 13:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

'Django Unchained' is broad in it's coverage. The article is clearly well written, with no noticeable issues with grammar and/or spelling. The article gets straight to the point with no irrelevant or pointless information. It also contains a fair view of the article's subject overall, with no bias views being represented. From looking at the article's history, I can see that the editing doesn't change significantly at any given periods of time. There are no 'editing wars' currently on-going in the article, and so far the edits seem to be reasonable and beneficial (overall) to the quality of the article. The illustrated pictures are all abiding by the relevant legal aspects of Wikipedia, and don't appear to be breaking any laws. The article is also well referenced with a variety of reliable sources. I can see no issues whatsoever with this article as it currently stands, and for this I feel that the article meets the requirements to be labelled a 'good article'. I am happy to say that this article (in my opinion) can be immediately passed as a 'good article', though other reviewers are welcome to give their reviews too, and all opinions are valued. To all who have contributed to this article's content, well done!.
 * Hello, what's going on? Did article passed the nom or still in the review? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like it was listed as a GA a few minutes after this review was initially posted. However, that shouldn't have happened while there was a "citation needed" template remaining on the article, which is one of those things that should always be identified for fixing by a reviewer. Captain Assassin!, can you please take care of that? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, but I'm really confused here . Reviewer just passed the nom without even informing me (nominator). So, I'm confused about that, should I re-nominate it, ask another reviewer to come take a look or we'll keep it as a passed GA now? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The bot normally would do the notification, but because the nomination was passed within minutes of the review being posted, I think all that got short-circuited. (The bot didn't even get a chance to transclude the review on the article talk page, which you later had to do manually.) I think what I'd advise is to leave it as a GA for now—definitely don't renominate—but ask someone at WT:GAN to take a look to confirm it's okay (or make suggestions here to get it there if it's not); this was a first GA review by someone who did about 200 edits in 2012, and has done another 300+ in the last couple of months. As such, I think it's useful to get an experienced eye on it, though I don't think we need a formal reassessment, so long as any issues raised are promptly dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I'll leave it as it is. If any issues raised, it will be dealt at the time, thanks for your time. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This was also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Prhartcom (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have copy edited the article under the auspices of the Guild of Copy Editors, at the request of . In my opinion, the prose quality is adequate to meet the relevant GA criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much . Now the article is officially GA. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)