# Talk:Presumed Innocent (film)

At some point, unless the content of this article changes, it will need to get moved to Presumed Innocent (film), and another page will be called Presumed Innocent (novel). Michael Hardy 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey Wright got a credit as "Prosecuting Attorney" for this film. I looked realy closely, but there is not a bit of him in the movie!! Either he is just somewhere in the background for half a second with his back to the camera or his scene was cut. (If someone spotted his half a second appearance, please give us the timecode ;-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.254.47 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Presumed Innocent (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to review this article in a day or two. Daß Wölf 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@FrankRizzo2006: Sorry for the delay and thanks for taking the effort and time to write this article :) My review follows:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
I've found only a few minor problems; I'll happily pass the article once these are attended to.

Plot
"When he had shown little ambition and would have therefore been of little use in advancing her career, Carolyn abruptly dumped him."  I'd recommend changing this to "As he had..." or "Since..." or simply "He had shown..."  Am I right in presuming this is about a single event where he failed to impress her?
"Lipranzer reveals the beer glass to Rusty, explaining that it was never returned it to the evidence room after the case was turned over to Molto and Della Guardia. - "it was never returned" or "he never returned it"?
Casting
'Ford said, "Friends warned me this was a tough role because Rusty is such a passive, interior character. Though Rusty's in every scene, all the action takes place around him. Things happen to him."' - the quote needs a direct citation
Development
The ref listed in the first para doesn't support the detailed bidding war description. I'm guessing from the AFINotes ref that another NYT article has it.
Some of the text cited to the SlamBang ref should actually be cited to the source's second page. This is not a problem for today's readers, but citing correctly in these situations prevents link rot as it forces web archives' crawlers to save the 2nd page as well.
Note: You can use {{sfn}} instead of <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>. You don't need to change this at all, just a heads-up if you want to spare your fingers a bit in the future.
Release
The film's name is repeated a bit too often here.
—
There are some minor close paraphrasing issues with the AFINotes ref. The vast part of this is unavoidable, but I'd be grateful if you could try to minimize this in any way.
Feel free to revert or discuss any edits and suggestions I made if you disagree with them. Daß Wölf 02:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Made various changes to the article, as per your comments and suggestions.FrankRizzo (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
That's a pass :) Thanks again for taking time to write this excellent article! I really don't see why this article had to wait so long for a review. Daß Wölf 02:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
It was definitely a long wait! Thank you for the GA review!FrankRizzo (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)