Talk:Night of the Living Dead/GA2
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Starting per a request on the Discord server, so let's hope it can make it to DYK in time for Halloween! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, this was part of an idea to have a DYK set of Halloween hooks and I said I could review any pending spooky GANs, which led me here per a suggestion from the unrelated Vaticidalprophet... no canvassing, we promise. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:48, 21 October 2023 (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. |
Prose is clear and concise | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
No MoS violations | |
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. | Refs are in a proper "References" section | |
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). |
Sources are reliable | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I don't see the need for a spotcheck- no OR visible | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
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. | Images are properly PD/Gnu tagged | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and captioned | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Source reliability
[edit]Responding to questioned sources:
www.image-ten.com
Primary source: studio.Homepage of the Dead
Primary source: Karl Hardman and Marilyn Eastman.TribLIVE
This is an online news site formed from several PA newspapers (Tribune-Review, Valley News Dispatch, Leader Times, Daily Courier and The Valley Independent) see Pittsburgh Tribune-Review or [1].diamonddead.com
Primary source: George Romero.Ain't It Cool News
Influential pop culture site: Used by the The Guardian, New York Times,[2] and MIT.[3]removedHorrorMovies.ca
Events.getoutaz.com
Published by the East Valley Tribune, a major Arizona newspaper. On archived versions of the newspaper site from that time there is a "Get Out" tab[4] linking to getoutaz.com.I removed the sentence with this citation as unnecessary.Cinema-suicide.com
Covered in the linked wiki article.ScreenAge Wasteland
www.scoop.co.nz
Independent news site and member of the NZ Media Council.[5] It's used to cite a single fact that the play was performed in Auckland, New Zealand.I've replaced one citation with shortened footnotes to more reliable sources and removed the other as redundant. The external link at the bottom is not used to cite content.Allmovie
Replaced with Harper (2005).Sequart
Here's a diff if any of my explanations of changes don't make sense:[6] Thanks for taking a look at the article, Rjjiii (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Also, @MyCatIsAChonk: I have paraphrased the long quotes except for the Ebert review block quotation. I'll scan the text soon and look for smaller quotations to paraphrase. I don't think these will affect Earwig's score. There are a lot of proper nouns in the article (people, films, companies, lawsuits, etc.), and that's what I mainly see Earwig highlighting now. Rjjiii (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Rjjiii done reviewing, lovely work. After the prose is adjusted per above comments, it's close to FA already, like you mentioned on the article's talk page. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Cast
[edit]@MyCatIsAChonk: I think most of the issues in other sections were straightforward. For the cast, I added a one-paragraph introduction and cut down the info on individual cast members. Let me know if the list is too verbose still and I can do a second pass to flatten it more. Keith Wayne is up for deletion, so I put the anchor into the article for a redirect, but have left the link in for now. Thanks for the kind words and the fresh eyes. This has been quite helpful. Rjjiii (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Very nice work, I think the cast list looks much better. Good to go for GA- hope to see it at DYK soon ;) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)