Talk:Thor (film)/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Mike Searson in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Mike Searson (talk · contribs) 21:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Overall, it's well written. There may be a little more use of "blogs" as sources than I'm comfortable with. They're not suppossed to be used to begin with, but I can bend this a little with regard to certain blogs (those published by reputable news outlets: LA Times, WSJ, etc) as most often that is an easier format for publishers to allow certein columnists to publish reviews and the like; I have a "Blog" of sorts myself for a print magazine, I'm the only writer they allow to do this, it has editorial oversight and is just a means for me to quickly publish articles relating to the Magazine and the internet in a timely fashion, not a "personal reflection" type of blog that wiki is against, but I'm getting off point, here. I'm going to look at some of the ones I'm not familiar with a bit more closely. Before I say they're "reliable" or not. The prose is generally good, but one of my pet peeves is over use of certain filler words like "Also". Sometimes it is warranted and I usually remove it unless it's in a direct Quote. In the Sequel section it's in each of the paragraphs: "Also in September", "Also in August", "Also in October". Try and rephrase this in a better way. thanks--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the helpful critique, I'll try to clean up some of the prose.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply