Talk:The Man from London/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- 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):
- Two images: one valid fair use movie poster, one WPCommons-hosted Creative Commons Attribution
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Conclusion
- This is a well-written article with appropriate referencing and relevant information. Only one thing; the lead should not introduce new facts, but summarize what is in the article: based on the 1934 French language novel L'Homme de Londres by prolific Belgian writer Georges Simenon is in the lead but missing from the article, it could fit into the 'Production history' section. Something else to consider should you develop the article further; consider adding a themes/motifs/style section, some points from the 'Critical reception' touch upon this and some of the reviews elaborate more. -maclean (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review, Maclean. I agree that the article could use expansion. I was constrained by the available non-paywalled English language sources in writing it originally, and the bare plot-production-release-reception structure is the result. You were right to flag the novel information in the lead section. I had not included it in the body because I did not think it would fit neatly in any of the narrowly-defined sections and was not long enough for its own section; I have copied it to the Production history section as background for now, let me know what you think. Hopefully in future I or another editor can access further sources to give the topic the article it deserves. Thanks again, Skomorokh 04:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)