Talk:Robert Rossen/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

Whilst it does not pertain directly to the article, I was somewhat surprised by the statement (and red link): The Hollywood Writers Mobilization Against the War, a body to organize writers for the effort in World War II. The title "The Hollywood Writers Mobilization Against the War" seems to be a direct contradiction of the explantion "a body to organize writers for the effort in World War II", but as that article does not exist I can't check it. Pyrotec (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lede needs work
The lede is WAY too much. Much of it is repetition of what comes later. Plus, it is chronologically perverse, starting off in 1949 then jumping back to the 1930s; it seems to be a lede that has its own lede. People who are far better known and had a far greater influence on the world than Rossen don't merit a lede that's anything like as detailed as this one is. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)