Talk:The Seventh Victim/GA1

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

Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 23:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Time for my second review after The Revenant (2015 film)! After a read, this article appears fairly darn well written, and a worthy contender for good article status. Here's what I have to say about the article for The Seventh Victim:


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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. I give my props to the uploaders/contributors of the images in this article; they complement the text rather nicely.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. I give my props to the uploaders/contributors of the images in this article; they complement the text rather nicely.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
 * Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.


 * Comments:
 * Cast: The "Cast" section lists the characters in boldface text and their actors in parentheses next to them, which is inconsistent with the vast majority of other film articles. ✅
 * Conception and filming: There is an incomplete short citation in the "Conception and filming" subsection. ✅

Cheers for now! – Matthew  - (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the two suggestions, and have fixed the American Film Institute citation issue, and un-boldened the character names for style/formatting consistency. Let me know if there is anything else I should re-evaluate. Thank you!! --Drown Soda (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I almost forgot something though; there should be a citation to support the film's running time (71 minutes) in the infobox. Rotten Tomatoes will likely have a running time listed. After that, I'll be ready to promote the article to GA status. – Matthew  - (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , there is a list for the run time in the Michael Pitts book (RKO Radio Pictures Horror, Science Fiction and Fantasy Films, 1929–1956)--is that a reasonable source for the run-time? I will add it to the infobox. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked up the book and it seems like a pretty reasonable source, seeing as it was published by McFarland, and fairly recently too (in 2015). Go right ahead, mate. – Matthew  - (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, it's now GA status! Lovely work. – Matthew  - (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)