Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1

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

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I will review this next. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  12:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
Infobox is well presented and laid out.
 * Good Infobox

Lead Paragraph
The lead is well written. It is quite long and could be shortened a bit. This section dose not contain 1 reference in the whole lead.
 * Well Written
 * Could be shortened
 * No references

Synopsis
Try to keep the standard colour for the quote box and have it horizontal so it merges in with the text where appropriate. There is not many references in the majority of this section. There are no references towards the plot, but the parts that are referenced are well referenced The part references to other works are is too trivial. That whole paragraph should not be included as it is not encyclopedic enough. See WP:IINFO.
 * Quote Box
 * Lack of References
 * Too Trivia

Cast
The last four names do not include character they portray. This section does not contain any cast sources.
 * Incomplete
 * No Reference

Production
It is mostly fairly well written this section. Still some improvements could be made, grammar wise. This section is an improvement on the others. The references are good and feature when necessary. As previously mentioned in the review please try and keep the quote box its standard colour. Please have it in horizontal view.
 * Fairly well written
 * Well referenced
 * Quote Box

Reception
Well written and referenced. No need to list all the other critics in Top film lists and awards. That part removing the trivia, could merge into the preceding part.
 * Well Referenced
 * List

Themes and Interpretations
This part is well referenced and written very well. Same comment I have about the quote box but well done on the writing of this very detailed section.
 * Good Section

Overall Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A.Yes the majority of the article is well written. A few minor grammar mistakes I picked up along the way, but excusable.
 * B. No, There are quite a few parts that are trivial information. Please do not include trivial information please read WP:IINFO. The opening paragraph needs some references for verification. It seems quite self research.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. First half of the article (Infobox, lead paragraph, synopsis [the majority of it] and cast) contain very little to no reference.
 * B. The references that are there are fully cited to reliable sources.
 * C. Contains a lot of original research towards the start of the article.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * B. No a lot of trivial parts included.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Neutral, article is not biased
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * Yes, there are not many significant recent changes
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * Yes, there are not many significant recent changes
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * This one was tough to judge, especially me seeing how good the end of the article was. Please fix the issues I addressed for the start. By making more references and losing the coloured quote box. Make sure you do not have any self research in the article or trivia parts. If these parts are fixed the article will have a better chance of getting a good article. Unfortunately this time I can not mark this as a good article with so much self research but I strongly appreciate the dedication that was put into the second half of the article, Thank You --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hold on now. Firstly, can it be put on hold pending improvements please? Secondly, some of your comments are inaccurate. There do nbot need to be references in the lead or syopsis. I don't think the cast needs it either but I'll have to check that one. There is absolutely no original research. May I plerase either have a second opinion or more time? As far as trivial content, can you be more specific?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)