Talk:The Seventh Victim/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by MatthewHoobin in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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:
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Putting this on hold until issues below have been addressed.
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)
- @MatthewHoobin:: 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)
- @Drown Soda: 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)
- @MatthewHoobin:, 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)
- @Drown Soda: 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)
- @Drown Soda: Congratulations, it's now GA status! Lovely work. –Matthew - (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Drown Soda: 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)
- @MatthewHoobin:, 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)
- @Drown Soda: 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)
- @MatthewHoobin:: 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)