Talk:Pieces of a Woman/GA1
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer:
talk · contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
]
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week.
talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
]
Infobox and lead
- Improve the non-free use rationale for the poster with this template.
- "Little Lamb" should go before "Bron Studios" per the billing block.
- "Proton Cinema" should also be added after "Bron Studios" per the billing block.
- Add a serial comma after Jimmie Fails.
- Add a comma after "September 4, 2020" per WP:DATECOMMA.
- That last paragraph feels like it could be expanded a bit.
- Do you have suggestions? The critical section is already summary style, and the stand-out response is obviously Kirby's nominations for all major awards, so I don't see what to add without being too much. Kingsif (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see that the critical response section mentioned criticism for the plot but overall gave praise to the acting, so I would mention that reviews were generally positive while also noting the criticism to fully summarize that section. talk) 13:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)]
- I see that the critical response section mentioned criticism for the plot but overall gave praise to the acting, so I would mention that reviews were generally positive while also noting the criticism to fully summarize that section.
Plot and cast
- The plot section is under 700 words so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
- Per the American English template, change "centimetres" to "centimeters".
- That's about it with the plot. There's also no issues with #Cast.
Production
- "as well as taking elements" sounds weird. reword
- Remove the comma after "Hungarian National Film Fund".
- "which explore" → "that explore"
- Remove the comma after "ten minutes long".
- Add a comma after "for example".
Release
- "afterwards" → "afterward" (American English)
- "at Toronto" → "at TIFF" (the event) or "in Toronto" (location)
Reception
- The accolades table should be improved for accessibility "sort keys", captions, and "scope=row".
- Also, do not use small font in the table per WP:SMALLFONT.
-
- The part "(Also for The World to Come)" is unnecessarily small. talk) 23:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)]
- The part "(Also for The World to Come)" is unnecessarily small.
References
- There is one source from Next Best Picture (in #News) that can be archived.
- EW should be changed to Entertainment Weekly.
- Be consistent with naming Deadline Hollywood.
- It already is? All that I can see say "Deadline" (preferred), is there any inconsistency? Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Changing between Deadline Hollywood and Deadline feels inconsistent, but having them all say Deadline wouldn't be a problem so I would suggest that instead. talk) 00:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Changing between Deadline Hollywood and Deadline feels inconsistent, but having them all say Deadline wouldn't be a problem so I would suggest that instead.
- Screen should also be changed to Screen Daily.
- There are spaces in between "Film Music Reporter".
- Avoid WP:ALLCAPS.
- Mark sources from Los Angeles Times with "|url-access=limited".
- Mark sources from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
- Mark all sources from The New Yorker with "|url-access=limited".
- Mark sources from Vulture with "|url-access=limited".
- Done above 4 - though I will point out that access is not limited for these using the archive links - and I don't know why you A. said "all", B. emphasized that for New Yorker when there was only one ref it needed adding too. Maybe you're being fun and snarky, but some of your comments seem to be, er, accusatory when there's no need for that in the first place, let alone when the issue is not as big as your comments suggest. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry? Just wanted to state that since some were already marked. And they're not "issues", just small suggestions. talk) 00:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Sorry? Just wanted to state that since some were already marked. And they're not "issues", just small suggestions.
- Is there a reason websites are credited as authors? If an author is missing from the source you can use the sfn tool "harvid" to create a citation using "website" and "year" instead and if there are several articles by the same person, you can also use the tool (example). Currently, there are also several citations missing authors altogether.
- Because I was too lazy to click through to the link when moving the refs to harv formatting. I'll get round to it. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @]
- Small thing, but there are a large about of talk) 12:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)]
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: In the refs? Just so I know where I'm looking. Kingsif (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)]
- @talk) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)]
- @
- @
- The source for Film Music Reporter also has the website as the author.
- You'll see I edited that, slightly, with the author's pseudonym being very similar to the website name. Pseudonyms are acceptable "names". Kingsif (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, Film Music Reporter is also the name of the website since it's not Film Music. talk) 13:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)]
- Well, Film Music Reporter is also the name of the website since it's not Film Music.
- External links
- Citing Rotten Tomatoes as an EL goes against WP:ELRC. However, there is a developing consensusto simply add "/reviews" to the RT code instead.
Progress
here for what they are not)
|
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |