GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Llywrch ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
My daughter made me watch this film 3 times this weekend, which led me to look at this article & notice it is up for GA review. Although I made one grammatical correction to this article, it will be a few days before I provide any substantial feedback. --
llywrch (
talk)
18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333 and FunkMonk: please feel free to contribute! -- llywrch ( talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay in providing feedback. Part of it was due to the demands of a father with a job, but the most important part was seeing some substantial edits by Ritchie333 & realizing this article needed a closer look.
First & foremost, this is a solid article that covers the entire topic in satisfying detail, & is mostly well-sourced. I feel this is very close to being GA. (Ritchie333's comment above is a surprising omission that needs to be fixed to be given GA status.) There is also the problem that since I took on this review the article text is not stable with about 40 edits (excluding Ritchie's) & one edit war over whether to say "universal critical acclaim" or simply "critical acclaim". (Sheesh. Someone needs to read WP:LAME.) So the text needs to settle down a bit before it can be given GA status.
The rest of my comments are not that critical, but I believe would improve the article:
I'll give you some time to address the two major & three minor concerns, & see if you agree with the changes others have made to this article. -- llywrch ( talk) 05:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Llywrch, Hasbino, what is the status of this review? So far as I can tell, the requested changes have been made, including the added citations. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Llywrch ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
My daughter made me watch this film 3 times this weekend, which led me to look at this article & notice it is up for GA review. Although I made one grammatical correction to this article, it will be a few days before I provide any substantial feedback. --
llywrch (
talk)
18:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333 and FunkMonk: please feel free to contribute! -- llywrch ( talk) 23:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay in providing feedback. Part of it was due to the demands of a father with a job, but the most important part was seeing some substantial edits by Ritchie333 & realizing this article needed a closer look.
First & foremost, this is a solid article that covers the entire topic in satisfying detail, & is mostly well-sourced. I feel this is very close to being GA. (Ritchie333's comment above is a surprising omission that needs to be fixed to be given GA status.) There is also the problem that since I took on this review the article text is not stable with about 40 edits (excluding Ritchie's) & one edit war over whether to say "universal critical acclaim" or simply "critical acclaim". (Sheesh. Someone needs to read WP:LAME.) So the text needs to settle down a bit before it can be given GA status.
The rest of my comments are not that critical, but I believe would improve the article:
I'll give you some time to address the two major & three minor concerns, & see if you agree with the changes others have made to this article. -- llywrch ( talk) 05:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Llywrch, Hasbino, what is the status of this review? So far as I can tell, the requested changes have been made, including the added citations. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)