Talk:Chuck Versus Santa Claus/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing. I'll give the article a read through now and add points as I see them. Miyagawa (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Lead & Plot: First mention of each character needs the actor name in brackets afterwards. It's already been done for the guests, but needs to be done for the mains.
- Critical response: "especially strong installment, which delivered on a lot of fronts." - needs a citation to directly follow it.
- References: Ref 3 needs an access date. Ref 10 is linking to the site's generic front page. However, is it possible to replace it with a similar reference to 11? That way it easily avoids any issues with 10 being a blog.
I'll give the article another look through once those points are covered.
- Regards the Bryce Larkin point, I would say that only if the actor appeared would they need to follow the character's name in brackets. Miyagawa (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have made changes to address the points above. --Boycool (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Only one remaining point - in cultural references, "a light-hearted Dog Day Afternoon parody." needs to have a citation directly following it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done. So every train of thought needs citation, even when the following sentences are supported by the same source? --Boycool (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's just quotes - they need directly following citations.Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done. So every train of thought needs citation, even when the following sentences are supported by the same source? --Boycool (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Only one remaining point - in cultural references, "a light-hearted Dog Day Afternoon parody." needs to have a citation directly following it. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have made changes to address the points above. --Boycool (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Happy to grade this one as a GA now. Good job on the overall improvements, and especially on the changes since the first GA review. It's great to see a Chuck episode meeting the grade, and I hope this won't be the last. :) Well done. Miyagawa (talk)
- Thank you very much. And yes, I intend for this to be the first of many. :D --Boycool (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)