Talk:The Actor's Children/GA1

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

Reviewer: Good888 (talk · contribs) 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Across the Way review is finished so could you please take a look at that article as well? Thanks.

Lead section
 * "Edwin Thanhouser said that 19 copies of the film were produced and distributed to dealers." Suggest changing said to stated.
 * "They end up dancing for an organ grinder and are saved by a theater manage" I have changed manage to manager.
 * Link vaudeville and nitrate deterioration if possible.

Plot
 * "As they return home and soon are interrupted by the landlady, Mrs. O'Brien." Suggest rewriting to: "As they return home, they are interrupted by the landlady, Mrs. O'Brien, who demands the rent.
 * "The landlady is upset and does not care about the family's misfortune." Rewrite to: "The landlady is upset when they cannot and does not care about the family's misfortune."

Production
 * Link The Mad Hermit and Aunt Nancy Telegraphs.

Reception and Impact
 * Link Moving Picture World.
 * "A more honest review in the The New York Dramatic Mirror was written reviewer was pleased with the production, but offered criticism about the production's weaker aspects." Rewrite to: "A more honest review in the The New York Dramatic Mirror was written by a reviewer who was pleased with the production, but offered criticism about the production's weaker aspects."

Notes
 * Isn't the note section supposed to be similar to the one in The Sea Urchin (1913 film) article?

References
 * Link the publishers of these sources.

Going to place on hold for now. good888 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Fixes done. Aunt Nancy Telegraphs was not released and has no information capable of supporting a stand-alone article. The notes section is different because the information in the notes is not of the same importance and prudence as the others. While I could reformulate it - the actual inline reference note from The Sea Urchin vary more so because only the uncited aspects of the published synopsis are being left out because those parts made an error. In order for these notes to be pertinent and relevant - the reader would have to have read the original published synopsis and seen the film to identify the error in the first place. That is the long version of why the style is a bit different. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. With that done, I am promoting to GA class. good888 (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)