Talk:Dead Celebrities/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of issues I'd like to see fixed before I pass this article:

The third paragraph of the lead section uses the words 'some proponents'. I would classify this as a weasel word and would recommend that you avoid it.
- Changed that (and the later reference) to "critics". Is that better? — Hun ter Ka hn 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no. Weasel word states that 'critics' is a weasel word :( It says to specify exactly which critics say that particular thing (i.e. 'Critics claim' would change to 'Jane Doe of the Iqaluit Herald commented...'. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the part with the weasel word altogether. — Hun ter Ka hn 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plot isn't referenced. Not sure if this is an issue.
- According to WP:TVMOS, it doesn't have to be. It says, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question."
Great. I'll know for next time. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'production' section is a little short. In other articles (such as Pee (South Park)) the production section is a lot longer.
- Yeah, unfortunately, I find sometimes there is lots of production info available for a television episode and sometimes there is very little. Conversely, this article had lots of info on the theme, whereas others have little of that. I combined the "Production" and "Theme" sections into one section, which GAN reviews have sometimes suggested in the past to fix this. Does that address it? — Hun ter Ka hn 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link for TV-MA L leads to two different locations (first in the lead and secondly in the production section). I think these should be made consistent.
- My mistake. Fixed.
OK. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'said' appears nine times in the Reception section. It would add 'spice' to the article to vary these a little ('commented', etc.).
- Ok, done. — Hun ter Ka hn 15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to pass this article as soon as these issues are fixed. Thanks, JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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:

Passed by JulieSpaulding (talk) on 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]