Talk:Red Tail Reborn/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: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) We'll start in a day or so... Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, just two things to fiddle with now, more to come :) For now:

Good :) Now, in the lead sentence "The project involves the restoration of a World War II P-51 Mustang flown by the United States Air Force 332d Fighter Group that has grown into a traveling and flying tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen."; clarify what "...that has grown into a traveling and flying tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen." refers to. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Address this too :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good! Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Details, please clarify the sentence "The film describes segregation endured by the black military officers faced, and it describes how these pilots distinguished record themselves."
Much betta :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next up; the Details section. Here, we have elements describing the subject of the documentary, the backstory behind the project and some production info. The major problem is, these elements are disorganized throughout the section, they aren't fleshed out a great deal, and the section reads too 'all purpose' :) What I suggest is; split out the section into a Story section, and a History and Production section. In Story, we could elaborate a little more each on: "...the story of the Tuskegee Airmen...", "...the history of the Red Tail Mustangs...", and "...the story of the late Don Hinz...". Then, History and Production could give us the backstory behind the project in the first portion, with more fleshy production info (if possible) on things like production/funding/budget/the production company, etc. Of course, based on the sources there are, that may be an unreasonable suggestion :) (However this is worked out, though, always feel free to take as much time as needed!) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No prob., and thx for the heads up. I'll put us on hold for now :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current reorganization is in line with your request.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent split-out! Now, we just need to address "...with more fleshy production info (if possible) on things like production/funding/budget/the production company, etc. Of course, based on the sources there are, that may be an unreasonable suggestion...", and then we can go forward :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any of this information in my sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... then we'll let it be good enough as is :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added that the film was produced by White's own production company.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next, if you have anything on the ratings/demographics of who watched would be great; you could then retitle Legacy to Reception and Legacy.
    • I think ratings are not applicable here. This was broadcast at various times by local affiliates. There is not going to be a Neilsen stat. I have not seen ratings numbers elsewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have its imdb ex-linked; that's good enough :) And with that... I don't find other issues, and everything else is a go. We Pass! Kudos and Very nice working with you! Paperwork time for me ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Red Tail Reborn passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Tail_Reborn/GA1&oldid=351124455"