Talk:28 Weeks Later/GA2

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 10:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Edward056686 (talk · contribs) 21:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Love this series, I'll review this. Edward056686 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• This article is written very smoothly and concisely, I think it's even better than the Tremors article. It covers all of the main aspects without unnecessary detail. I didn't find any copyright violations and the images are fairly used. You rely on the production notes from Rotten Tomatoes very heavily as a source for the production, but it's a great source so I understand. You use a wide range of other sources throughout the rest of the article, although I wish there was more than one source in Themes.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.