Talk:Cine City, Withington/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be happy to perform the GAC on this article. H1nkles (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• Are the coordinates necessary in the lead? I see them in the usual upper right-hand corner, isn't that enough?
• The lead is very short, even though the article is also short, the lead could be expanded to summarize the history of the cinema and what replaced it. H1nkles (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding History

• One stub (only one sentence long) paragraph in this section, please consider expanding or combining with another paragraph.
• What competition caused it to close? Was a new theater built or were there just too many in Manchester at the time? H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding closure and redevelopment

• Watch weasel wording in this phrase, "The building, once considered to be one of the most iconic in Manchester...." Please consider rewording it.
• Otherwise this section is comprehensive and good. H1nkles (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Replacement building

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references

• Add publisher or work to the following references: 1,2, and 15.
• Per WP:CITE newspapers, journals, magazines should be italicized.
• Given the changing nature of the web I usually like to see accessdates w/in 3-4 months of my review. Please update these.

• The access dates do not need to be updated. What you need to check is that the links are still live, which they are. You may find this tool useful for your future reviews. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Great thanks, I've heard of this tool but never been able to find it, I'll tuck it away for future use. H1nkles (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please update reference 6 (the book) with publisher, year and location. H1nkles (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding overall review

• The article is pretty close.
• I would like to see if there is any more on the history of the cinema. You have some interesting detail, is there anything else that can be found on it?
• Other than getting a little more indepth on the history (if possible) I would say you need to fix some of the references to fit MOS requirements.
• You should also expand the lead a bit to make it more summary in nature.
• I'll put the article on hold for a week and give you time to work on these things. If you need more time just let me know. Good job. H1nkles (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The lead's now expanded, the references should be up to MOS standard, and I've managed to find a little more information on the history. I haven't got the time at the moment to dig much deeper, though... Mike Peel (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks great thanks for the work on the article. It is improved to the point that I will pass it with confidence. Well done. H1nkles (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)