Talk:Death Race 2/GA1

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) 07:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ivey (talk · contribs) 23:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• I will be taking part in this review as an experienced editor for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm excited to work alongside Ivey, I have outlined my process with GAN reviews at User:IntentionallyDense/October 2024 GAN backlog drive if you are curious. If you (or the nominator) have any questions at all feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me here. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'll take a look at your process notes now.

  I went through all of the criteria, and all seem to be in line. It seems to me that this article has been through a long edit process already, so I didn't find any actionable things. Looking forward to seeing what you think. Ivey (talk - contribs) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing is jumping out at me as an issue with the article. To show that you have properly assessed all the criteria maybe do something along the lines of this but with a bit more detail. Basically go through each criteria and state clearly how it meets the criteria. For example, with 1a: "The prose is understandable to a broad audience and there are no grammar issues". Please ping me here once you have done that and before you pass the article so I can make sure there is enough detail. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 16:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The first thing I checked was 1a: this article is well-written, and has clearly had a lot of work put in on the editing front.

Next I ran through copyvio and looked at the references. The sections flagged by copyvio as verbatim are direct quotes, and are well-sourced. MOS for references looks good, and the article does not appear to contain original research. It is broad and covers the film well, without going into unnecessary details.

The article follows MOS for layout, lede, and other sections.

The article is stable and shows no evidence of edit wars or conflict.

The article is written from a neutral POV.

I checked all the images and confirmed the two that aren't free-use have good explanations for their use.

I intend to pass the article based on this review. @IntentionallyDense for confirmation before I do so. (and thanks for your help) Ivey (talk - contribs) 14:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This looks like an appropriate summary of your work as a reviewer. I think it would be safe to pass this article. Great work! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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.