Wikipedia:Peer review/The General (1926 film)/archive1

The General (1926 film)
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a lot of work on it and although I do not think it has enough content to be a B article I would like to see it in great shape and simply needing more content added to it.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. All the issues with the articles seem to be tagged but I would like to point others:


 * Remove citations from the lead WP:Lead
 * I would merge the two versions section due to small they are.
 * "In 1989, The General was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". It made it into the registry in the first year it was enacted, along with such films as The Best Years of Our Lives, Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Singin' in the Rain, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Sunset Blvd, and The Wizard of Oz." That is also unsourced.
 * Try formatting the two sources
 * Other than that, I can see this article becoming a GA if its issues are solved. Also, I made a peer review request here. I would appreciate any sort of feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dig deeper
Overall a good article.

ID'ed 2 dead links.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 35mm, use 35 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 35 mm

To say it is one of the best movies of all time... a little misleading. I rephrased it slightly.

The lead should have more plot info. Just a couple of sentences, see the featured article The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) as a good example.

In the plot, it would good to give the reader a sense of the comedic part of the movie. Perhaps mention how his clumsy actions consistently serendipitously turn out to have positive results.

The references are good, but I think the bot has concerns about the variety. The article weighs heavily on 2 sources, try to balance this out.

A good candidate for a GA. A pleasure to review. Dig Deeper (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)