Talk:Olivia de Havilland

Preview warning: Page using Template:Talk header with unknown parameter "auto"
Good articleOlivia de Havilland has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2016Good article nomineeListed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 26, 2020.
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 1, 2016.

GA review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Olivia de Havilland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this tomorrow, definitely now;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Green tickY " and psychological dramas playing unglamorous roles in such films as" Try "and unglamorous roles in psychological dramas such as"
  • Green tickY " and television feature films, such as Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna for which she received a Primetime Emmy Award." -comma in the wrong place, move it to after Anna.
Early films
  • Green tickY "Los Feliz section " -link?
  • Green tickY "The film was released in February 1938,[81" -move this up to where you mention "The film, which marks her first appearance in three-strip Technicolor".
War years
  • Green tickY "While the comedy is light, it is also intelligent, " -in who's opinion?
Personal life
  • Green tickY "Stewart in fact proposed" -"in fact" not needed.
  • Green tickY Link "Paris Match"?
Already linked in the lead and in the article above.
  • Green tickY " Bois de Boulogne park in the Rive Droite section" -did you link these?
Already linked in the lead and in the article above.

Excellent job, very comprehensive. Perhaps a little too detailed in places but that can be addressed if needs be at PR stage. Certainly looks well researched enough to be a future FAC. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for reviewing this article. I appreciate your time very much. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]