Talk:The Pasha's Daughter

The Pasha's Daughter 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.
Review: June 26, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Film: Silent / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Silent films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Note[edit]

The claim that Francis Boggs directed the film is an error, apparently originating with the creation of this page. Unfortunately, the error has been picked up and used on a veritable range of websites - most which do not cite Wikipedia at all. This includes Fandor.com and the "World Heritage Encyclopedia" which is blatantly ripping off Wikipedia - right down to "Template:Romantic-drama-film-stub" in the article. It does not appear to have been picked up for any published books - so this error will hopefully be corrected. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Pasha's Daughter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly done. Two more to go. JAGUAR 19:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I would recommend splitting the lead into two paragraphs to make the lead more balanced, per WP:LEAD

Nothing on the Production in the lead, despite the section being scarce the lead must summarise, even if it's minor

The plot summary in the lead is quite extensive

Is the list of people in the production sentence a definite list of people who worked on the film? The lead says otherwise

The names in the Cast section are not in the lead

The original story must be linked

Production should be fleshed out
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The assertions regarding the cameramen could be original research, but both candidates are included in the reference given.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Why is every character always called Jack? But anyway, passing this on the grounds of research JAGUAR 21:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Jack and May - Lonergan liked those names and used them frequently. Though the characters were identified in official plot summaries - the audiences were not treated to names. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we use the names as intended - but you'll seen dozens of instances in which Jack and May are the names. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]