Talk:Army of the Dead/GA1
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article and the nominator,
Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 96.1% of authorship is one user, Some Dude From North Carolina. It is currently ranked a C class article, assessed on 25 March July 2021 by Some Dude From North Carolina. It was also nominated as a GA at the same time but that was withdrawn on 29 May due to "high levels of vandalism". There has been minor editing since then.
- Images are tagged with appropriate licenses under Creative Commons apart from the poster, which is Fair Use.
- The page has been checked with Writix, which confirms content is free of plagiarism.
- There are a few newspapers listed. Please confirm that they meet WP:NMEDIA.
Done They do. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- There are a few websites lised, incljuding WP:RELIABLE.
Done via
WP:RSP discussions. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)]
- There is a citation in the Infobox. Consider removing these in line with WP:INFOBOXREFand adding a referenced mention in the main body.
Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- In the Infobox, the budget is listed as $70–90 million but in the text $70 million. Please reconcile these.
Already done #Development says "it was announced that Netflix had given the film a $90 million production budget" and in #Casting it says "the production budget [was] now reported at $70 million." Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- The document does seem to have been quite volatile, particularly with regard to reversions. Please confirm it is stable.
Done It is. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Great work. Please ping me when you would like me to complete the assessment. simongraham (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Simongraham: ready. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Assessment
The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
- It is factually accurate and verifiable
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- it contains no original research;
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
- It has a neutral point of view
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a
Pass simongraham (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)