Talk:The Lives of a Bengal Lancer (film)/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Article uses the terms 'movie' and 'film' interchangeably. Replace all instances of 'movie' with 'film'

Even though it is clarified later in the prose, I still think you should attribute the statement "one of the greatest adventure films of all time" in the lead as well

The wording "recently dead officer" is a bit odd, suggest 'officer who recently died' instead.

"very beautiful slave" seems a bit dramatic/POV, suggest removing there word 'very'

"(a line which is frequently misquoted)" - this doesn't belong in the plot, if you wish to include it do so later on and with an inline citation

Done, and sourced. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" is tragically killed in the assault" - remove the word tragically, which is POV

"It claimed a universal gross of $49 million (today's equivalent of $1,5 million in the 1930s)" - I'm confused by what you're trying to say here. How can 49 million be todays equivalent of 1.5 million? And you need to replace "today" with the actual year (which would appear to be 2008, considering the offline source) as per WP:REALTIME

"Canadian journalist Laura Elston wrote in an article for Canada Magazine that the film..." A bit long-winded. Suggest simplifying to "Laura Elston from the magazine Canada wrote that the film did...

I think you can merge the top three and the bottom two paragraphs in the 'Reviews and influence' section.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Reference 18 is dead

Removed and replaced with Britannica. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the 'Baltimore sun' reference - something appears to be wrong with it, and as far as I can tell it doesn't back up what it is used to support in the article

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

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 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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, I have responded to all your points and made edits to the article according them. Please let me know if there is anything else. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonas Vinther. Well done on the article. I'm happy for this to pass now, but just pointing a couple things out. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. The main article does not currently mention anything about the misquotation, so that shouldn't appear in the lead. I think you should move it elsewhere. Also I think it would be much better if you said the film grossed 1.5 million and then clarify that in 2008 1.5 million would be 49 million. I.e 'It claimed a universal gross of $1.5 million (equivalent to $49 million in 2008)', or something like that. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]