Talk:Hyde Park Picture House/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am giving Hyde Park Picture House a Good Article review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Good job
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * In a spot-check of the references, Ref#6 for Their Only Son & Great War statement is in error, nothing about that film or the Great War appears within the John Parish/Yorkshire evening Post article - it looks like one of the other YEP refs has gotten confused with Ref#6. Also it is unlikely that this film will ever get a Wikipedia article since no prints survived and other than it being a "patriotic drama" not much is known about it. I did find this source as a possible ref for information about the Picture House - perhaps it would be of some help.
 * ✅ Thanks very much for the review (and good spot with the ref error!). Do you think I should unlink Their Only Son? Cavie78 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes, I doubt there will ever be enough material for a Wikipedia article.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * There is a red edit notice in the editing window re: the "alt" (caption) parameter being invalid. Please adjust the alt caption according to Template:Infobox venue' logo_image (subsection).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This review is on hold pending the alt caption being fixed & the reference # 6 issue (for "Their Only Son" & Great War statement). Once that is done, I will complete the review.
 * The review is still on hold, pending 6b above - the alt caption needs to be fixed.
 * I don't know what you mean about the alt caption. The infobox doesn't have a logo in and the field image_alt is valid according to the link you've posted. I don't see a red edit notice either. Cavie78 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ok, you fixed it with this edit.
 * Congrats, you've got a bouncing Good Article.
 * Excellent, thanks again for the review Cavie78 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a red edit notice in the editing window re: the "alt" (caption) parameter being invalid. Please adjust the alt caption according to Template:Infobox venue' logo_image (subsection).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This review is on hold pending the alt caption being fixed & the reference # 6 issue (for "Their Only Son" & Great War statement). Once that is done, I will complete the review.
 * The review is still on hold, pending 6b above - the alt caption needs to be fixed.
 * I don't know what you mean about the alt caption. The infobox doesn't have a logo in and the field image_alt is valid according to the link you've posted. I don't see a red edit notice either. Cavie78 (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ok, you fixed it with this edit.
 * Congrats, you've got a bouncing Good Article.
 * Excellent, thanks again for the review Cavie78 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)