Talk:Olivia de Havilland/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this tomorrow, definitely now;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Green tickY " and psychological dramas playing unglamorous roles in such films as" Try "and unglamorous roles in psychological dramas such as"
  • Green tickY " and television feature films, such as Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna for which she received a Primetime Emmy Award." -comma in the wrong place, move it to after Anna.
Early films
  • Green tickY "Los Feliz section " -link?
  • Green tickY "The film was released in February 1938,[81" -move this up to where you mention "The film, which marks her first appearance in three-strip Technicolor".
War years
  • Green tickY "While the comedy is light, it is also intelligent, " -in who's opinion?
Personal life
  • Green tickY "Stewart in fact proposed" -"in fact" not needed.
  • Green tickY Link "Paris Match"?
Already linked in the lead and in the article above.
  • Green tickY " Bois de Boulogne park in the Rive Droite section" -did you link these?
Already linked in the lead and in the article above.

Excellent job, very comprehensive. Perhaps a little too detailed in places but that can be addressed if needs be at PR stage. Certainly looks well researched enough to be a future FAC. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for reviewing this article. I appreciate your time very much. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]