Talk:Still Alice/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

: 1a Flows well; what is this ",;" in the plot? Otherwise good to go 1b   needs some organizational tweaks. Critical and accolades should be subsections of an overarching "reception". Would like a brief, brief mention of the Sony hack in the lede too, since it's an important part of the release with its own subsection. Otherwise good to go   2a  Homework done 2b  Ref 55 needs formatting, otherwise good to go 2c. No synthesis, checked links verify content 2d. Checks free of copyvios per Earwig tool.  :  3a. Covers main bases in production, release and reception 3b. Not a lot off topic.  . Accolades section overlooks the fact that it was Moore's first Oscar and that she was the frontrunner  while missing the critical dispute over its worthiness , which could be balanced out by the praise in The Guardian and a reminder of the Rotten Tomatoes consensus

5. No horrific edit wars ( The horror, the horror... )  Moore image is free, poster is attributed


 * Thanks for the helpful review, and sorry it took me a few days to respond. I think I've addressed all of your comments – thanks for the suggestion to elaborate on Moore's Oscar win, because I think it was worth noting. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be changed. 97198 (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ; sorry, just noticed this in lede: "Moore's performance, who won numerous awards"- a performance is not a "who". Ribbet32 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And there's no ref on the Women's Image Network Awards. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good eye. I've adjusted the wording and removed that award from the table because I couldn't find any reference for it apart from IMDb. 97198 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you, listed. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)