Talk:A Free Ride/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 13:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.	I'm pleased after my copyedit
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good
	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.	~~See below~~
	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).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~See below~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~See below~~
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per definition
	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.	Checks out
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments[edit]

1b

The lede should better reflect the article, including the 1923 estimate and that the film has given rise to other works. Perhaps have two paragraphs for the lede, considering the length of the article.

Expanded the lede to include all these points, made a two-paragraph lede. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2a

The pile up of references for "Most sources put the production year of this film at 1915 and consider A Free Ride to be the earliest surviving American hardcore pornographic film." looks awkward. Any way it could be merged into one reference, maybe through a footnote?
Also, publisher locations?

I have used Template:Sfnm, but some technical problem occurred. See this. The Thompson reference is not showing the year. Someone knowledgeable about this technical issue should fix it. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is fixed. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3a

I think a bit about the Oppenheim film should be added, at the very least the title and how it could not have any actors. (Is it worth an article?)

Added. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3b

I'm not sure the anecdote about de Renzy is entirely relevant.

Nuked. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6b

I think a screenshot would be best for the infobox (perhaps the title card), with the film further down and in a larger resolution. That's not a criteria, naturally. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I have no idea how to take a sceenshot from the video. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a side comment, not a must. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks on Cavendish and Thompson check out, as does paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold for the relatively minor fixes above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does it, methinks. Congrats! Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]