Talk:Search for Grace/GA1

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the

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.	I did some copy editing for clarity and conciseness throughout the article.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	Lead does not have to contain citations for statements that are cited in the body. So I removed those citations.
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 .	Consistent use of CS1.
	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).	Spot-check: 1, 4, 6, 10, 15, 17. All sources seem to be either newspapers or reliable websites. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every statement appears to have a citation.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'd recommend, per MOS:FILMCAST, the casting section to be more detailed, with a brief description of the characters they play. See Wikipedia:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Film for examples. However, as per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-1 , it is not necessary, so feel free to contend this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See 3a. Other than that, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appears to be neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not mine from over months ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Non-free image not overused and reduced. Other image is from Flickr.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Acceptable, though if the picture of Masur could be replaced by either the lead actress or director (in production), that'd be even better. Not a necessity, just food for thought.
	7. Overall assessment.

@1TWO3Writer: Thanks for taking on this review. I’ll do my best to address any points in your review promptly. Regarding #6b, I didn’t use an image of the lead actress because I couldn’t find one on Commons from around the time the film was made/released, and I felt the available images of her from the 1970s or 2010s might not be representative. Unfortunately, I also couldn’t find any images of the director on Commons. Bennv123 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! That comment more was for future reference—if anyone reading this has access to such images, feel free to add them! 123Writer ^talk 15:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1TWO3Writer: Thanks for the prompt review. I’ll have a look to see how I can improve the “Cast” section per #3a as soon as I can. Bennv123 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, you passed GA criteria anyways, so take that suggestion as just that - one way to continue improving the article. Good job! 123Writer ^talk 07:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]