Talk:Cobra Kai season 4/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dawnleelynn (talk · contribs) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm planning to review this article for good article status. Feel free to talk to me here. I'm pretty available right now. I'm in the first stages of learning to review good articles. But I have many years of editing so this should be no problem. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first note is that I did reviews on episodic tv articles for my QPQ in DYK, so you won't have to worry I'll want sources for the places where they are typically not required as such in the episode summaries, etc. I also saw your other Good articles for this show and that will aid me in reviewing. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, I'm looking forward to working with your review to get this article to GA status! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review To Dos

Ok, so I took a look at your sources. There are a few issues to address. I like to get the resources done first. Mainly because changing these can cause content changes too and then if you have done the other issues you have to repeat or do over those changes, like grammar and manual of style changes.

1. There are five sources that have the following issues: a. They are too long, and b. They are Twitter resources WP:TWITTER. Also, two resources appear to be duplicates that could be combined. The five sources are all Twitter sources, except for one Instagram source. Also WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. The Twitter sources are by @cobrakaiseries. I'm happy to consider other policies, etc. Sources are those by @cobrakaiseries, one Instagram by Matt Ryan. Please excuse me for adding more tasks to sources; It's been awhile since I've done reviews, such as in DYKs. I have now verified each link one-by-one; they are all active and seem reliable. Just what's left is the social media links, and I found there were a few more Twitter links than in my first sweep. Once that is satisfied, I do believe the sources section should be done.dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWITTER that you pointed to says that Twitter sources are okay for claims about themselves as long as there is not a reasonable doubt to its authenticity. The @cobrkaiseries account is verified so any claims from that page should be okay. The Zach Robinson Twitter account is also verified and the Matt Ryan source easily checks numbers 1, 2, and 3 of the same criteria, leaning towards 4 as well since Robinson mentioned Ryan in his tweet. I have merged the duplicate sources. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not above asking for help when I need it. Some help from a familiar editor who has done who myriad more in good articles and FAs; also been here a lot longer pointed me in the right direction (policies for good articles) and some good advice. We are all good now. The tweets pass in this case since they are as you said regarding tweets about the person tweeting or the Cobra Kai account, etc. If you don't mind the length, that is also ok.

Now I'd like to go over the content, mostly just a copy edit as nothing shouts out to me regarding tone. Can I just do it and you can check it over or would you prefer that I make a list? dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length, I can fix that if need be, sorry that I forgot to address it. Just to clarify do you just mean that the title of the sources is too long? (If so, that's an easy fix!) As for the copy editing I'm fine either way, if it's easier for you to do it, I don't mind; otherwise, just let me know what needs to be fixed! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much. To clarify, references 30 and 31, the titles are very long. They are tweets, which explains the length. It's up to you if you'd like to shorten them. I appreciate your patience in these matters. I'll work on the prose now. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the title of both to the important part that supports the claim in the article. The copyediting you've done looks fantastic, huge thanks for that! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet adjustments you made look great. I have just completed another small copyedit on the article looking for small things. Mostly, it was just adding punctuation for sentences to join two independent clauses together, or other missing punctuation, fixing tenses, possessives, etc. I feel confident it is complete now. You did a great job on it, which left me little to edit overall. The tone was very neutral, the POV neutral, which also helped. I should be able to sign off this soon. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this review went pretty smoothly overall I think, and many reasons why lay at your doorstep. You did a great job in all of the 5 categories. I just had to check the boxes off and fix some small issues. Just so you know, I did check each source by clicking through to make sure each one worked and looked reliable. These aren't sources I'm familiar with but I did think they passed muster. It's a well written and cited piece of work. And you were a pleasure to work with, so thanks for that too. Bearing with me in my first article review (not counting several QPQs in DYK of course. There's some duplication there that helped me. Anyway, good luck with your further works; perhaps we will meet again. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheDoctorWho Some things I still need to learn to do like pinging the editor. Your GA passed! dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank yo again for the additional copyedits. It was fantastic working with you as well; if you have any questions about any future GA articles or just anything about MOS:TV and related WikiProjects don't hesitate to drop a message on my talk page, I'd be more than happy to help!

TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review - see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise. Spelling and grammar are correct. I made some minor edits.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, and words to watch.
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 inline 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. I used Earwing on it.:
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
Is it neutral? Yes its viewpoints are fair and without bias.
Is it stable? The article has almost no edits going back a month now and then starting up with this review.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;

B. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass