Talk:Professor Popper's Problem/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: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead[edit]

  • Runtime and budget usually have citations in the infobox.
  • That being said, the runtime doesn't need to be sourced in the lead.
  • In the first note, can a more reliable source be added rather than using Amazon.com?
  • Shouldn't BBC (or the network the shorts originally aired in) be mentioned in the infobox or in the lead?
  • Add a comma after "Milo O'Shea".
  • "minaturised" → "miniaturised"
  • Corrected everything but the Amazon reference. I searched far and wide for a better source for this info but drew blanks. Not perfect, I know, but one fears I can't do much about this (the woes of detailing obscure films).

Plot and cast[edit]

  • "after it find" → "after it finds"
  • Add a comma after "Terry, Angus, Carol".
  • I suggest changing "Danger" to "The danger" as it sounds better.
  • The plot section is under 700 words, so that passes WP:FILMPLOT.
  • Per WP:FILMCAST, roles such as "Headmaster" and "Meter Maid" should be lowercased.
  • Corrected.

Production[edit]

Development and direction[edit]

  • Don't put AllMovie in italics, in this section and in the rest of the article.
  • Add a comma after "associate producer".
  • "only which" → "only one which"
  • Corrected.

Screenplay and visuals[edit]

  • Optional, but can the uses of "..." here and in the rest of the article be changed to "[...]"?
  • Instead of a note about the budget, I think it would be easier to use the template for inflation in the UK.
  • Corrected ellipses. I'll confess, I don't know how to use the alternative template. If you feel RPI is insufficient I'd appreciate your own input.

Music[edit]

  • Add a comma after "Phil Collins".
  • Corrected.

Response[edit]

  • No issues here as this section looks great.

References[edit]

  • Link all linkable websites/publishers/agencies in this section.
  • There's a reference titled "Shail, The Children's Film Foundation, p. 114." and then multiple citations simply left as "Shail, p. 28.". I suggest adding a #Bibliography section to make things simpler (as in the GA-articles The Sound of Music (film) and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly) or, if you choose, you make just make the citations more consistent.
  • Corrected. Believe I got all the links, at least! Alas, some were too obscure for Wiki at present.

Progress[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·