GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: JohnWickTwo ( talk · contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Article assessment may take a day or two to start. Is this the only film by this director which you are interested in or are there others by him as well.
JohnWickTwo (
talk)
02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: Let me know when you would be ready to start. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 03:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: Second ping. You appear to be editing other pages but not here. Your "ready to go" signal is needed, or the article may be seen unready for GAN. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 00:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: That is the first two sections. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This article has been researched extensively by the nominating editor with fairly consistent results. The research is reflected in a fine bibliography with nearly a hundred citations many of which are fully linked. There are a number of optional edits which I have marked into the assessment outline above which might be taken with some seriousness. The recent GOCE outline is my preference for the article, though the nominating editor appears to have questions about this. Also, the footnotes in the lede section are generally not preferred for GAN articles. Otherwise, the article covers all basic facts required of a peer reviewed film article. The writing does not appear to contain original research and the images all check out. The recent GOCE TOC outline would be nicer in the article if plans are made to further improve it towards a featured article. This film article is now at peer review quality and is passed. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 02:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: JohnWickTwo ( talk · contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Article assessment may take a day or two to start. Is this the only film by this director which you are interested in or are there others by him as well.
JohnWickTwo (
talk)
02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: Let me know when you would be ready to start. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 03:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: Second ping. You appear to be editing other pages but not here. Your "ready to go" signal is needed, or the article may be seen unready for GAN. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 00:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Ribbet32: That is the first two sections. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
This article has been researched extensively by the nominating editor with fairly consistent results. The research is reflected in a fine bibliography with nearly a hundred citations many of which are fully linked. There are a number of optional edits which I have marked into the assessment outline above which might be taken with some seriousness. The recent GOCE outline is my preference for the article, though the nominating editor appears to have questions about this. Also, the footnotes in the lede section are generally not preferred for GAN articles. Otherwise, the article covers all basic facts required of a peer reviewed film article. The writing does not appear to contain original research and the images all check out. The recent GOCE TOC outline would be nicer in the article if plans are made to further improve it towards a featured article. This film article is now at peer review quality and is passed. JohnWickTwo ( talk) 02:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)