Talk:State of Play (film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DeadlyAssassin (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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.	It's really pretty good, just a few things stuck out at me: "The original was written by ..." : The original what? "Brad Pitt had a long association with the part." : Which part? "The railcars cost the production $1,000 per hour, for at least 10 hours use." Not referenced, and use of at least is a bit generic. "Scenes were filmed at the Watergate complex, for which the production was granted permission to use the roof of a George Washington University campus building." : Not clear, did they shoot the GWU roof as if it was Watergate, or did they shoot from the roof onto Watergate?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There is at least one contraction - e.g. ...but because the script didn't explicitly show... Lead section is a bit short. The article is 59k, WP:LEAD suggests 3-4 paragraphs. Reference inside the punctuation: ...which McAffrey interrogates Dominic Foy[73]. You could think of dividing the article into some sub pages - WP:LENGTH suggests that it could do with this, but it's optional as the article is generally in summary style. I'm not a big fan of the serial comma, but have discovered that this is more commonly used in American English than I'm used to e.g. "by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, Peter Morgan, and Billy Ray." The bullets in the cast section should either end in a full stop (.) or not, at the moment some do, some don't.
	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.	There are a number of broken links or ones that require registration. Please refer to checklinks to see the full list (I'll put the link below as it breaks the template if I do it here), but here are the ones I saw that were problematic: 3, 6, 47, 5, 59, 84. There may be others.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Could be improved though if there are there any sources which analyse the film in terms of what was going on at the time e.g. Blackwater USA.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As mentioned in above, it could possibly do with being spun out a bit or reduced, some sections are really quite in depth and not necessarily summary style, the story of the involvement/non-involvement of Brad Pitt sticks out here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	If anything, could do with more images but those that are there are relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	An excellent article, well written and very (almost too?) in-depth. The broken references is a particular problem - checklinks (below) could help sort those out. I'll put it on hold and will watch this page once the cleanup has happened.

Checklinks: [1]