Talk:Snow White: The Fairest of Them All/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * From the "Development" section: "Kreuk noted that she had been 'entranced', believing that the main message that audiences would take away from the film was that you can't judge an individual's personality based upon their physical appearances." I don't think your allowed to use the word "you" on Wikipedia articles, unless if it is in a quote from a person.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Suggestion: I think some box office info on the European release of the film could be helpful (if there were any), and info about the ratings when the film aired on TV could be helpful (if there were any).
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The image use here is appropriate, but (this may sound a little picky) I think that the caption for the images of actresses Miranda Richardson and Kristin Kreuk should have it's caption include the full names of the actresses and what "two main characters" the caption is talking about.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll give this article seven days to make these improvements, but please let me know if I could be wrong with these issues that should "not be part of a good article".
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll give this article seven days to make these improvements, but please let me know if I could be wrong with these issues that should "not be part of a good article".

Reviewer: EditorE (talk · contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears the issues explained above have been fixed and yet this article is ready for passing. EditorE (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)