Talk:Edna Mode/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "She is an eccentric fashion designer renowned for designing and creating the costumes of several famous superheroes before they are all forced to retire, having worked particularly closely with the superheroes Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl (Bob and Helen Parr), with whom she has maintained a close friendship." — Can be rephrased as "She is an eccentric fashion designer renowned for designing and creating the costumes of several famous superheroes before they are all forced to retire, having worked particularly closely with Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl (Bob and Helen Parr), both of whom she has maintained a close friendship with."

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "earning an Annie Award for Voice Acting in a Feature Production for h l performance." — Typo?

• Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Edna is considered to" — By whom? critics? audiences? Both in general?

• Fixed, "by several media publications."--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "and engineering, envisioning Edna as a scientist and technical genius in addition" — You can add "thereby" between "engineering" and "envisioning".

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "various Pixar employees typically temporarily provide characters' voices" — Can be rephrased as "various Pixar employees typically provide characters' voices temporarily".

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Are "Urban Cinefile", "STATUS" magazine reliable sources?

• Yes, they are reliable for the statements they're supporting; Urban Cinefile is an online film review website similar to James Berardinelli's ReelViews, while STATUS is an entertainment magazine in the vein of Entertainment Weekly or People, or perhaps more accurately like Interview.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "According to Oscars.org, the character is inspired by both Head's signature glasses and "forthright personality"." — Rephrase it as "According to Head's entry in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the character is inspired by both her signature glasses and "forthright personality"."

• I like how that sounds much better, done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "100 Greatest American and British Animated Films author Thomas S. Hischak" — You've mentioned the book and the author's full name in the development section. Just Hischak will do.

• Got it, done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wikilink "The Tyee".

• Done.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Slash Film" redirects to "/Film". Fix it.

Fixed.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Some of the magazines/newspapers/websites linked in the previous section ("Rolling Stone", "Slash Film" which redirects to "/Film", "GamesRadar+", "Entertainment Weekly", "Screen Rant") are linked here again. Delink them.

• Got it, fixed. And any other examples I could find.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Deitalicise the websites in the references (Ref nos 1, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 41 (/Film, not Slash Film), 42, 45, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 64, 66, 67, 69, 71, 75, 77, 78 and 79)

• Respectfully, I don't believe this is necessary; all website references default to italics.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ref no 65 should be spaced as "Screen Rant". Same for ref no 75 ("Mouse Planet").

• I fixed Screen Rant, but MousePlanet is actually the correct formatting for 75.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Address these comments and the article is promoted, Changedforbetter.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ssven2 I've addressed all points; let me know your final verdict.--Changedforbetter (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for addressing them, Changedforbetter. Congratulations, the article has passed.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)