Talk:How Brown Saw the Baseball Game/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Taylor, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that's unusually quick. Thanks! Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I like to get a jump on to the film ones before others beat me to them.

Got distracted by other projects today but should post an initial review tomorrow. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertisements for the film branded it as "such fun."[9]" -- normally I'd say a quote from the advertising might be excessive detail, but in this case there's so little that we should probably leave it.

Okay, I don't see any significant problems here on first pass. Actually, I don't even see any trivial problems here on the first pass; this might be my first in 350+ GA review where I don't make a single edit. Very nice work on this. Let me turn to the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Spotchecks and copyvio detector show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It's brief, but appears to cover what's known about this lost film.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--very nice work

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.