| Rate
|
Attribute
|
Review Comment
|
| 1. Well-written:
|
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
|
The prose is sometimes not clear. An examples from the lead: "The season 6 premiere is the only episode in which House is the only regular character to appear, besides Wilson (briefly)." -- I don't even understand what that means. Also it should say "season six" not "season 6". There's also a dablink and a {{clarification needed}} tag. The prose could use some polishing, but that is not the article's primary problem.
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
|
The lead does not seem to follow WP:LEAD very well. Particularly the last paragraph; why is none of this mentioned in the body text? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. I also see a contraction, which doesn't abide with "words to watch".
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research:
|
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
|
There are three dead links. At a glance, I also see an improperly formatted citation.
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
|
Besides the dead links, the rest of the article appears to be well-sourced.
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research.
|
I cannot find any instances of OR.
|
| 3. Broad in its coverage:
|
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
|
One of the large problems, this article is not very broad in coverage. There is no 'reception' section, and the only reception in the article exists in the lead. Even in the lead, there is only one critical review given. For a character who spent eight seasons on a top primetime show, there should be a 'reception' section of at least two paragraphs.
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
|
Nothing really leers off topic.
|
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
|
I have not noticed anything that is not neutral.
|
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
|
There is a bit of IP unsourced insertion of content, but nothing major.
|
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
|
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
|
Within the fair use rationale for File:HouseGregoryHouse.png, the link to the source is dead.
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
|
All images appear to be relevant, and the captions are appropriate.
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment.
|
If you apply a possible weight of 2 points to each criterion, it equals 22 possible points. If you add all the points for this article, giving 2 for pass, 1 for neutral, and 0 for fail, it equals 14. 14/22 is 0.64, meaning that the article only meets 64% of the criteria. My first instinct was to immediately delist, but I will notify active top contributors, and the WikiProject, to see if anyone is interested in fixing the article's issues. I will leave this open for a few days, to see if there is any response.
|
