Talk:Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I may start reviewing film articles again, there's only been about half a dozen passed all year. :(

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I bloody hate Rotten Tomatoes' "certified fresh" rating. There's something strangely surferish to it. I'd suggest replacing it with the less-catchphrasey Metacritic description—"universal acclaim" in this case.
Link Bridget Jones maybe? I'm not sure where to point it (Bridget Jones's Diary (film), Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film) or Bridget Jones).
I know it's entirely valid to include terminal punctuation in a quote if it's in the source ("like this."), but since the article mixes such instances with instances of the punctuation coming after the quote. I tend to uniformly use the latter option to create a sense of consistency, but it's up to you if you want to go with that or not.
I'm not sure all the instances of "Mr." are necessary. Beyond introducing characters like Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy, it's probably best to revert to Collins and Darcy from there onwards.
Something bugs me about the word "inputted". Perhaps try "inserted" or "added".
I'm not sure the bullets in the "Editing" section are needed, this could probably just work as prose.
"The 2005 film is rated 86 percent fresh by Rotten Tomatoes" -> I don't think we need the "2005" descriptor, since it is the subject of the article; I'd also rephrase the whole "fresh" thing again, perhaps as "The film has received an average review score of 86 percent according to Rotten Tomatoes", perhaps working in a link to review aggregator somewhere along the way.
What's "9-dual layer" actually mean/do? I couldn't find an explanation with a search. Also, on the topic of the DVD, is the extra scene at the end of the US version included (and if so, as standard or an extra)?
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Ref 40 should really be a note and not lumped in with the citations. There are templates that can be used (there's a templated note in Arkham Asylum) or it can simply be coded like the notes in Mike Patton discography, to pick some examples off-hand.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Looks good in terms of scope.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Yep.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Not a bother.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Pretty much grand, though the existence of File:Pride & Prejudice London Bus.jpg leaves me wondering how justifiable the essentially-the-same File:Prideandprejudiceposter.jpg is. What are your thoughts on it?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not a lot of working needing done, shouldn't take too long to sort this one out. Sticking it on hold for the time being. GRAPPLE X 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the review (and for reviewing film articles; I agree they should be brought to GA more frequently). I think have addressed most of your concerns. I kept Rotten Tomatoes but replaced its mention in the lead with Metacritic (which I agree sounds better). I didn't touch any of the images, namely because I think a movie poster is extremely justified for an article, particularly in the infobox to help readers identify the movie. I considered swapping that particular poster with another, but then realized they are all more or less identical to each other (Darcy and Elizabeth together in the same positions). That said, there would be no reason to delete the bus poster, because it is a free image and it enhances the marketing section. Let me know if you have any other concerns (this will be going to FA eventually, though admittedly it still could still use a lot of work before it gets to that point!) Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was very careful with punctuation when citing quotes (the placement of the period or comma reflects the original quote). I would be hesitant to go back and change them as a result. I'll try to bring this up at the eventual peer review though for more opinions. Ruby 2010/2013 05:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems in order now. I'm aware that your use of punctuation is correct (I've done enough of these things of yours by now to know!), I'm just wondering if their consistency will be an issue at FAC—I'm far from the best copyeditor here, though, so don't worry about it unless someone much more professional about it, like FAC regulars Dank or Nikkimaria, bring it up. I'm just thinking that moving all of the punctuation outside the quotations would look aesthetically consistent whilst still keeping the quotes accurate to the source (I only even thought to consider it as could see this was going further in the future). Leave it be for now, and drop me a stern reminder at each point of this thing's progress to chime in on it. Going to promote this now so I can get to bed; well done again. GRAPPLE X 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]