Talk:Harmy's Despecialized Edition/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 03:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review on Hold[edit]

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

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.	Prose quality is pretty good, but structural layout for article could use some improvements to increase ease of flow for reader. Suggest adding sub-subsections to sect Production, and moving "Legality" to be a sub sect in that parent sect. Example sub sects of Production can be Inspiration, Creation, and Assistants, or something like that.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro sect uses citations in some places and not in others. Per WP:LEADCITE, cites not needed if material is not contentious AND if it is cited later in article body text, as it should be. Also, if you ARE going to use cites in the lede, should be consistent, to increase both uniformity and also standardization, throughout.
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.	Background sect, "as of 2016, the films are only widely available in their altered versions." needs citation.
	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).	Sources check out alright.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article appears to be duly sourced to secondary sources, throughout article body text.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Quotations are used with quotes, and attributed with in-line citations as such, in appropriate manner.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Suggest re-organization with increased sub subsection structural format, as recommended, above, and that will help to assess the scope of article a bit better.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does have a good tight focus.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Any additional Reception info? I bet there are some more sources out there with some discussion. Any negative reception? Criticism? Constructive criticism from the generally positive sources?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Upon my inspection of article edit history and article talk page and its history, article is indeed stable.
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.	Two images used in article, one fair use and one free use. Both are appropriately explained on their image pages. Both images check out okay.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, images are both relevant to the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for seven days.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the additional reception info. I've had a look for extra reviews, but there just don't seem to be any – all the reviews either speak positively about the project, or else don't give an opinion at all. I can keep looking, if you'd prefer. Thanks for the review, Cirt! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@A Thousand Doors:Have you had a chance to look over my suggestion from the very top point number 3, above? — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review some GA nominees? Sure, I can do that when I have some more free time, although that may not be until the weekend. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no worries, just a suggestion, thank you. I'll try to find some time to have another read through of the article again. — Cirt (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has disappeared, and on a look myself didn't see anything of note, so I'll step in and pass this. Wizardman 23:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You've also reminded me that I said that I've review a couple of other GA nominees, so I'll get on that as soon as I can. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]