Talk:Paranoid Park (film)/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA, and so far I think it is very good. It is well written and your sources seem to be reliable. It is an interesting article on an interesting film. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC) GA review (see here for criteria)
 * I have been through the article and think it is fine. I see nothing to criticize.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Clearly written  b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Unusually well referenced and references are well formatted b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers the major aspects of the film b (focused): Remains focused on the subject
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Is NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Congratulations! This is an excellent article, impressively referenced and cleanly edited. The article manages to say what is necessary while still being concise. Very good job.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Congratulations! This is an excellent article, impressively referenced and cleanly edited. The article manages to say what is necessary while still being concise. Very good job.
 * Congratulations! This is an excellent article, impressively referenced and cleanly edited. The article manages to say what is necessary while still being concise. Very good job.
 * Congratulations! This is an excellent article, impressively referenced and cleanly edited. The article manages to say what is necessary while still being concise. Very good job.

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! — 97198 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)