Talk:Enola Holmes (film)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 19:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll take this one, expect it to be done in the next few days. --MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Spelling/grammar correct, and the prose is well laid out. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Good lead, well laid out, words to watch are in quotations and cited correctly, list of cast/characters is correctly formatted, and the synopsis is proper size. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Auto-generated references section placed correctly; external links section below has the IMDb page and other movie-related websites. Citations are correctly cited, most having the authors and archive urls listed. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Citations are reliable; most come from film-related magazines like Variety, Deadline, or The Hollywood Reporter. One citation is to a YouTube video, but that citation is from Netflix's verified channel. Citations, most notably quotations, contain the claims/quotes stated. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research, all claims are correctly cited. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio checker shows no violations in the text, and all quotes are correctly cited. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Covers plot, cast, production, release, reception, the lawsuit against it, and a bit about the sequel. The section about the sequel links to the main article here and briefly summarizes it. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Each section is decently sized, the longest being production; all stay focused on the topic. Sequel section summarizes the second film well. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The only potentially controversial section is the lawsuit section, and that is neutral, only using quotations when stating the sides of the argument. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | There seemed to be a minor edit war on the 6th of December between 2804:214:81b1:15b0:4c90:6723:527b:e3e and User:Erik, but it has since been resolved by User:ThaddeusSholto. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images tagged with copyright status; the official release poster is correctly registered under fair use. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images beyond the poster are in the production section: one of Millie Bobby Brown (the lead actor and producer) and of Benthall Hall (the filming location for the family's home), both of which are relevant to the production section and have fitting captions. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Overall well-written, correctly cited, well-illustrated, and stable/neutral. Thanks to User:Rusted AutoParts and 109.76.139.116 for a majority of the edits. Very nice! |
Missed it. I was keeping an eye on this and was willing make changes (or discuss if the article was still locked) and help get this to {{Good Article}} status. I'm pleased to see it passed without needing much modification. I've made many edits over the years but as far as I can recall this is the only article I've been substantially involved with that has gone to GA status. (I had thought maybe Stardust (2007 film) would be my first.) Thanks to all those who helped knock the rough edges off the article. Thanks to the reviewer for this little Christmas gift. -- 109.78.206.28 (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)