Talk:Dual Spires/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Big Twin Peaks fan, but I've never actually seen this series at all. Might give this episode a look some time to see if whets my appetite.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose style is fine, I see no problems with it.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is grand, no problems there. Minor issue would be that I don't think the section on Twin Peaks references needs a link to the production section, since they're immediately adjacent. Referring upwards seems redundant since it's assumed the sections would be read from top to bottom.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Citations seem reliable and correctly used, nothing is left to OR. Impressed that the Twin Peaks references section is so well-cited, often these things accumulate bits of OR and this hasn't. :)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I'd like to see the Nielson ratings explained, but otherwise this is fine. Just expand on what a "2.2/4 share among all households and a 1.3/4 share among those aged 18–49" actually means (see Deep Throat (The X-Files episode) for an example).

   B. Focused:

   Focus seems fine. Doesn't go off too much into Twin Peaks territory, though maybe the production section could have some character names trimmed - run a list of actors with their Twin Peaks characters in brackets, perhaps? Like "...appearances by Sherilyn Fenn (Audrey Horne), Dana Ashbrook (Bobby Briggs)..." would work.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article seems neutral and unbiased.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article seems stable - no vandalism or edit warring.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Two commons images check out fine, and the non-free image seems to have a suitable rationale.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are used well. The David Lynch one could maybe be reduced in size, though, as it seems a little intrusive.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, the article seems to be ready to pass. I'd still recommend some of the above changes, but they're minor enough that I'm not going to hold the article until they're done. I'll promote the article now. Well done.

Thank you very much. --Boycool (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)