Talk:Robert Rossen/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well-referenced and apparenly comprehensive article on a film director.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on producing a fine article.

Whilst it does not pertain directly to the article, I was somewhat surprised by the statement (and red link): The Hollywood Writers Mobilization Against the War, a body to organize writers for the effort in World War II. The title "The Hollywood Writers Mobilization Against the War" seems to be a direct contradiction of the explantion "a body to organize writers for the effort in World War II", but as that article does not exist I can't check it. Pyrotec (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede needs work[edit]

The lede is WAY too much. Much of it is repetition of what comes later. Plus, it is chronologically perverse, starting off in 1949 then jumping back to the 1930s; it seems to be a lede that has its own lede. People who are far better known and had a far greater influence on the world than Rossen don't merit a lede that's anything like as detailed as this one is. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]