Talk:Quantum of Solace/GA1

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

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).

Comments
1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;  and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Lead seems a bit short for the length of the article.
 * Lead now OK

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, 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;   and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;   and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

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

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;   and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.


 * Starting review.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Initial inspection. Well, it looks impressive. Of the four articles I've just taken onto my plate for reviewing for GA, this looks the best. Lots of cites, from varied sources, and online so easily and quickly checked. A good layout. A range of sections. Lots of detail. Good balance. Prose is readable and interesting. Lead may be a bit short. Article appears to be fairly neutral. There is some minor IP nuisance, though that is typical of articles which are on topics currently in the public eye. There is nothing serious going on. Article has been in existence since 2005, with User:Alientraveller taking a firm hand over a prolonged period, and currently still involved. This might be a fairly quick review. I look forward to getting stuck into this tomorrow.  SilkTork  *YES! 02:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Concerns arising:
 * 1) Lead section doesn't cover all aspects of the article. In particular the response and box office sections are not mentioned at all. [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]
 * 2) There are four references sourced to The Hollywood Reporter which requires an annual subscription of £299 to view the sources.
 * 3) The opening paragraph of the Filming section uses short, choppy sentences. This could be rewritten to flow more attractively.[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]
 * 4) The entire Filming section needs attention. It could be trimmed - the paragraph on Carlos Lopez for example, seems trivial and excessive. Much of the information could be condensed into a more flowing, attractive and less trivial prose.[[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|18px]]


 * Addressing issues.
 * 1) I have expanded the lead, so I am now OK with that.
 * 2) Hollywood Reporter referencing is problematic because of the need to subscribe, though is allowable.
 * 3) Rewritten opening paragraph of Filming. Now OK.
 * 4) Trimmed the paragraph on Carlos Lopez. Now OK.

Article meets requirements for a Good Article.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusion.