Talk:Frank's Cock/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Right - I'll make comments below. Interesting read and looks pretty polished. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It'd be good if you could avoid using the word "film" in consecutive sentences (1&2 in lead)


 * Thanks Cas. I'll wait for you to finish reviewing before I start working (no need for edit conflicts) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Second film --> production


 *  The two began an older brother-younger brother fantasy and move in together.  (past --> present tense in one sentence) - actually the Synopsis section changes from past to present. Best to choose one and align the whole section. Possibly present is better.
 * As the narrative is in the past tense then shifts to the present, this should be reflected in the text. Frank isn't dead at the time of the narrative. That sentence above needs to be fixed, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the sentence above and changed another place to the present perfect, to better reflect the narrative. It's interesting to read too (and open access). These are my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the article is well written (I did read it through once before beginning to post as I had a few screens open and was multitasking) and I have found very little to copyedit. It's an engaging read. I guess the only niggles are comprehensiveness....is there any material on how much it cost to make, any other reflections by participants on making or reception, and what other awards it received around the world. But then again it's only an 8 minute film....otherwise looking good....Over to you, it's late here and I am going to bed. Will take a look in the morning...g'night. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I could contact Hoolboom, but we need previously published stuff. Haven't found much. Experimental films don't seem to have much info on them. I'll check the Google News Archive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - a nice read overall, I think the prose works well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)