Jump to content

Talk:Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (Community)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • The phrase "games creator Dan Harmon" makes it sound like he made D&D - try rewording.
  • Is there a reason it can't be mentioned it was Chang (Ken Jeong) wearing blackface?

Plot

[edit]
  • This section is 371 words (361 without actor names), so that passes WP:TVPLOT.
  • "feigns an interest" should be "feigns interest"

Production

[edit]
  • "He also" → "Harmon also" (to avoid confusion with previous sentence)
  • With the comment above, change the next sentence to "He credited".
  • Add a year date for Saving Private Ryan.
  • Same thing for The Fellowship of the Ring.

Reception

[edit]
  • This section looks good.

Removal from streaming services

[edit]
  • No issues here.

References

[edit]

Some Dude From North Carolina: All items have been addressed except for the years in parentheses – I haven't seen that in many other TV articles. Do you have a link to that policy? Otherwise, I'm inclined to leave them out; they disrupt the lines without adding any necessary information (in my opinion). RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Though optional, I thought it would be better to have consistency with other GA-articles mentioning year-dates from Community, including "Paradigms of Human Memory", "Pilot", "Regional Holiday Music", and "Remedial Chaos Theory". Anyway, since it is optional, I'll pass the article as all my other suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·