Talk:Girl in the Flower Dress/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "...while Jeremy Zuckerman..." would read better with while replaced by and. In the last paragraph of the lead, "according to Nielsen Media Research," would work better at the end of the sentence. In the Plot section, "...and trainee Skye..." should specify she's a SHIELD trainee since the sentence also talks about her Rising Tide membership. "Chan, angry with Centipede for betraying him" - it's not clear from the text how Centipede betrayed Chan. It should mention somewhere that the removal will kill him (or detain him permanently, I don't remember exactly what was going on). This sentence also has a lot of commas and would read better split in two. "Lydon uses his hacking..." Lydon was last mentioned being caught by SHIELD and betrayed by Skye. You could add a sentence explaining that he's helping them, or remove this sentence altogether. The exact method of their escape isn't vital to the summary. "...but not before giving him a S.H.I.E.L.D. bracelet..." I think this would read better as "but gives him an irremovable SHIELD bracelet that..." "she reveals to him that she is..." would read smoother as "she admits she is..." "...the team, and to help..." this comma is not needed. Under Development, "Marvel revealed that the fifth episode would be titled "Girl in the Flower Dress", and would be..." is wordy. "Marvel announced the fifth episode, "Girl in the Flower Dress", would be..." reads smoother. Under ratings, "timeshifted" needs a wikilink. Eric Goldman's and James Hunt's quotes both run on and need to be split apart.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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 in-line 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:
All sources are reliable and listed in a consistent fashion.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Since this is the fifth episode, I think the Ratings section needs some comment about the increase/decrease/stability of the viewership. If no sources mention this specifically, you can source earlier numbers, and any calculations you perform would be permissible under WP:CALC.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Very
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
rationale provided

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
image needs alt text
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few copy edit issues, one request for additional content.
I think I have covered everything. There was actually a good article on the ratings drop I found based on this episode's ratings, so that was ideal! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent find on that rating source, and I'm glad you caught that extra typo in the lead. Good work! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]