Talk:Young Lord Stanley/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Half way through the sweep JAG  UAR   14:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD
 * Nothing on the Production in the lead, despite the section being scarce the lead must summarise, even if it's minor
 * The plot summary in the lead is quite extensive
 * Is the list of people in the production sentence a definite list of people who worked on the film? The lead says otherwise
 * The names in the Cast section are not in the lead
 * " improvement from works like The Two Roses" -such as
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.
 * 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.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Well researched and well written, once again. Nothing major so it can be put on hold. I am passing this on the grounds of good research. Do my eyes, deceive me, this film isn't lost? JAG UAR   21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)