Talk:The Brothers Grimm (film)/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    In the Plot, "Delatombe captures the Brothers and is about to burn them along with the forest and Jake's book of stories", you need to explain why Delatombe captures the Brothers, adding because of Jake's book isn't really helpful. Also, I know that the Plot doesn't need to go overboard with information, this particular thing does need to be precise.
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    In the lead and Pre-production section, it would be best to add (MGM) after "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer", since the article does mention "MGM". Question: In the Plot, "twelve" is spelled out, but "10" is numerical; shouldn't "twelve" be numerical as well? Also, per here. In the Filming section, why is the "C" in "Collaborator" capitalized? In the Critical analysis section, "Rotten Tomatoes" and "Metacritic" are not supposed to be italicized, per here.
    Check.
  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:  
    Reference 28 is missing Publisher info.
    Check.
    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):  
    Is there a source for this ---> "The Brothers Grimm was released in the United States in 3,087 theaters, earning $15,092,079 in its opening weekend"?
    Check.
    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:  
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, great! I finished addressing all of your concerns. Wildroot (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply