Talk:Moneyball (film)/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Right cite in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I will check this out. Right cite (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination edit
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 16, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Good writing style, good size of the intro section, good choice of organization structure, good selective use of quotations, overall a good quality article.
- 2. Verifiable?: I see some comments on the talk page about citations here, and I agree with that discussion. Great job with the citations even for that small bit of factual info in the Cast section. Everything is cited. Even the Accolades is cited even though it has its own page, that is really good to have it cited here as well!
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Like I said above, good structure, good flow, I remember seeing this film itself in theaters and it is good to see a high quality discussion of not just plot, cast, and reception, but also a good discussion with sources of the production process behind the film as well.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Even with the high amount of positive reception, the reception section still gives some time to negative criticism and so yes it is neutral and presented from NPOV.
- 5. Stable? I'm not seeing any major issues with stability here, so far so good.
- 6. Images?: Everything looks good, the fair use rationale on the movie poster is very good. However, I would caution about File:Brad pitt 2020.jpg, not sure that is really that particular uploader's image, but I checked the metadata, I'm just not sure. But it is asserted as free use and we could accept it on good faith from that user for the time being.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Right cite (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)