Talk:The Girl (2012 TV film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bruce1ee (talk · contribs) 07:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this nomination. I've already done a first-pass through the article and it looks good, but I'll follow up here with my findings over the next day or two. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Overall this is a nicely written article, it's clear, well-sourced and gives a good coverage of the subject. Some minor points:

• I've done a little punctuation copyediting. There were a couple of instances of missing close quote marks, and I fixed some "quotes within quotes" problems (see MOS:QUOTE).

• In the "Background" section, first sentence, Donald Spoto's book Spellbound by Beauty should be dated. It is dated in the lead section, but the lead summarises the body of the article.
  • Done.
• In the "Ratings" section, I think "Boxing Day" should be linked, it's only observed in Commonwealth nations, and for clarity, I think the date (26 December 2012) should also be added.
  • Done.
• Have you considered added a couple of pictures to the article? For example File:Hitchcock, Alfred 02.jpg and File:Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds Trailer - Tippi.png (I can't find any free pictures of Miller from this film). It's just a thought and not a GA requirement.
  • Done.

—Bruce1ee^talk 13:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and for correcting the punctuation. I've made the changes suggested and added the images. Let me know if anything else needs doing. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and the updates. I've promoted the article – well done! —Bruce1ee^talk 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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 fine; no indications of close paraphrasing or copyright violations
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	Resources all appear to be reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.
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.	One fair use image used, correctly tagged
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See comments above Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Waiting on feedback on comments above All addressed – pass