Talk:First Motion Picture Unit/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll read through properly later and start the review tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, all done, only minor points to address, listed below. Nice work! 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to go. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;


 * The lead says that this was "the first military unit made up entirely of professionals from the film industry." I'm having trouble seeing this spelt out in the main text itself though.
 * ✅ it's here – Lionel (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * " FMPU personnel served with distinction during World War II." - wasn't quite sure what this meant (e.g. is it a formal honour, like being "mentioned in despatches", or just a general "they did a good job"?
 * general they did a good job – Lionel (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "First Motion Picture Unit is also the title of a 1943 self-produced documentary" > "First Motion Picture Unit is also the eponymous title..."?
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * " According to Mark Betancourt" - worth explaining who he is - e.g. "According to historian Mark Betancourt..." or "According to a member of the unit, Mark Betancourt..."
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "The unit was unique in the methods employed to obtain recruits." - unique in what context? (e.g. in the US military, or during the Second World War, or worldwide?(
 * source only says "unique in the military" -- adjusted text to reflect this. However, the context is clearly the US military, and WWII, but isn't said explicitly. – Lionel (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "and could be moved in a way which simulated an airplane's flight over the model" > "and could be moved to simulate an airplane's flight..."?
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "captured bomb damage inflicted on the major European cities. " > "the bomb damage"?
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Army Air Force declined to produce and edit the footage at an estimated cost of $1 million." - unclear if this means that they declined - at a cost of $1 m - or the production and editing would have cost $1 m. I assume the former, but would be good to clarify.
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * " Special Film Project 186 has been called " - by who?
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "combat cameramen" - were these actually members of the FMPU, or did they just train with them? I wasn't certain from the way this section was worded.
 * Sources aren't clear as to their status while training with the unit; whether temporary assignment or whatever. But after training they were referred to as "alumni" and were officially assigned to the Air Force where they were sent.– Lionel (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Every time you flip on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel, and you see World War II from an American perspective, you're watching the work of one of these gentlemen. That's their legacy." - such a cool quote to end on! Nicely found. :)
 * thank you Hchc – Lionel (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * Complies. As a minor point (not a criterion for GA), the MOS would have the Hal Roach Studios image either right justified, or moved one paragraph down. Hchc2009 (talk)
 * Moved pic for extra credit. How does it look now? – Lionel (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;


 * I'd question whether the "Daily News" website is a reliable source; apart from that, looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Los Angeles Daily News is the 2nd largest paper in LA and in 2004 7 years after the cited article one of their reporters was nominated for a Pulitzer.– Lionel (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob's then; the Free Library website just seemed to cite a "Daily News" without an author, which made it seem a bit odd! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.
 * No OR spotted. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;


 * E. J. Fleming's "Carole Landis" has some details on the financial arrangements behind Fort Roach that might be of use.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * All good. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.


 * Neutral. Generally the article is quite "pro" the FMPU, but this accurately reflects the literature, which is also generally "pro". Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.


 * Lots of current editing, but no editing war or content disputes. Hchc2009 (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)