Talk:Brad Follmer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

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

Done In the Character arc, "He did not believe in the X-files and deliberately showed disrespect to John Doggett by calling him "Mr. Doggett" instead of "Agent"..", I believe one period should be suffice.
- Check.
Done Same section, "...Follmer shot dead the mobster", the start of the sentence doesn't read well.
- Check.
Done In the Conceptual history, you might want to say what Chris Carter's role was in the show, "creator", "executive producer", etc.
- Check.
Done Do the same for Frank Spotnitz in the second paragraph.
- Check.
Done Also, you might want to say "British actor" for Cary Elwes in the same section. It's mentioned in the lead, but people do tend to forget what they read at the beginning.
- Check.
Done Same section, there's something wrong with this sentence ---> "Along with announcing the character, the said the character would only appear in six episodes."
- Check.
Same section, "When describing his character to The Hollywood Reporter, Elwes said he "is a guy who is a little more buttoned up, a little more polished; he represents a different kind of FBI", why is that stated twice?

Can you please explain what you mean by "twice"? Mephiston999 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first reviewed the article, the Hollywood Reporter bit was mentioned twice. See here, but it was removed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cant find any source saying how he was received by the public or critics. Maybe its because he is not a major character, and when he was introduced he didnt have an important role. Mephiston999 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there's none, then I guess there's none. I was just wondering whether or not their were sources available. Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done In the lead, please link "unfriendly" to its correspondence article.
- Check.
Also, in the lead, you might want to make a note saying if the character was well received or not. (Ex: James Wilson).
- Half-check.
Done In the Conceptual history section, please link "The Hollywood Reporter" and "Annabeth Gish" once.
- Check.

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

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

Thank you to Mephiston for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]