Talk:Thor (film)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Searson (talk · contribs) 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, it's well written. There may be a little more use of "blogs" as sources than I'm comfortable with.  They're not suppossed to be used to begin with, but I can bend this a little with regard to certain blogs (those published by reputable news outlets: LA Times, WSJ, etc) as most often that is an easier format for publishers to allow certein columnists to publish reviews and the like; I have a "Blog" of sorts myself for a print magazine, I'm the only writer they allow to do this, it has editorial oversight and is just a means for me to quickly publish articles relating to the Magazine and the internet in a timely fashion, not a "personal reflection" type of blog that wiki is against, but I'm getting off point, here.  I'm going to look at some of the ones I'm not familiar with a bit more closely.  Before I say they're "reliable" or not.  The prose is generally good, but one of my pet peeves is over use of certain filler words like "Also".  Sometimes it is warranted and I usually remove it unless it's in a direct Quote.  In the Sequel section it's in each of the paragraphs: "Also in September", "Also in August", "Also in October".  Try and rephrase this in a better way.  thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful critique, I'll try to clean up some of the prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, it's well written. There may be a little more use of "blogs" as sources than I'm comfortable with.  They're not suppossed to be used to begin with, but I can bend this a little with regard to certain blogs (those published by reputable news outlets: LA Times, WSJ, etc) as most often that is an easier format for publishers to allow certein columnists to publish reviews and the like; I have a "Blog" of sorts myself for a print magazine, I'm the only writer they allow to do this, it has editorial oversight and is just a means for me to quickly publish articles relating to the Magazine and the internet in a timely fashion, not a "personal reflection" type of blog that wiki is against, but I'm getting off point, here.  I'm going to look at some of the ones I'm not familiar with a bit more closely.  Before I say they're "reliable" or not.  The prose is generally good, but one of my pet peeves is over use of certain filler words like "Also".  Sometimes it is warranted and I usually remove it unless it's in a direct Quote.  In the Sequel section it's in each of the paragraphs: "Also in September", "Also in August", "Also in October".  Try and rephrase this in a better way.  thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful critique, I'll try to clean up some of the prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)