Talk:Concerned/GA1

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pretty good, a bit too much use of commas, semi-colons, and "however..." - would be better to work on getting a fresh pair of eyes to copy-edit the article, and break up some of those awkward sentences.

I've written it, so I probably I won't be able to do much in this sense. If anyone else thinks he could help, please take a look at the article. — Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might try inquiring with Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the article over the past several days, addressing these awkward spots. Pi zero (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited with proper note formatting. A bit too heavy of a reliance on primary sources, however. I would have liked to have seen a bit more usage of secondary sources independent of the article's subject, try to see if you can dig up some additional discussion in secondary sources, especially for the Reception subsection, if at all possible.

There was a mistake there regaring the refs (the wrong one was cited), that I not fixed, but I don't know what you mean by this. The only ref in Reception section that comes from hlcomic.com is used to cite the fact that he won't continue the comic through EP1. Anyway, before starting to write this article I searched quite a while for sources, so probably if i didn't find anything else back then, i won't do it now either. — Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did some brief looking around and couldn't find much else in the way of independent secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources either, so maybe you've exhausted stuff for the time being. But keep looking :) Cirt (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers many aspects of the article's subject matter. One minor note subsection title "Theme" should probably be "Themes".

Okay. — Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutrally-worded manner.

5. Article stability? No major issues in edit history going back a few months other than some minor IP issues, and though there has been some prior detailed discussions on the talk page in addition to AFDs, the relatively recent talk page history appears to be civil. However, there do still seem to be some unresolved issues related to the article's title. Is everyone in agreement that the article's title should be Concerned and not Concerned: The Half-Life and Death of Gordon Frohman ?

Yeah, we all agreed on this one. — Diego_pmc ^Talk 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Images?: Three images used, with detailed fair-use rationale given on all three image pages, no issues here.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

Many thanks to Pi zero (talk · contribs) for doing some copyediting. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]