Talk:Grumpy Old Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Koopatrev (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article soon (before June 4, 2012).Koopatrev (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing now. Koopatrev (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and Images

Prose is fine, well written
Images are of good quality and clear, they are tagged with copyright statuses and has a suitable caption on

Infobox

The writers should be listed in two lines with <br /> Done by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The episode originally aired on Fox in the United States on December 11, 2011." "United States" could be linked. Done Per Wiki Manual of Style, this isn't necessary.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"Carter is reluctant at first (since he doesn't want to leave out a six-billion dollar company), but eventually ..." Change "doesn't" to "does not". Done by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link the first "Joe" you can see to "Joe Swanson" Done by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references

A source is needed for the first statement in that paragraph.
See this section for problems with sources. Done (change done by TBrandley (talk)) Koopatrev (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production and development

Nothing wrong so far. Done

Reception

A section is needed for reviews from critics.

References

Family Guy Wiki is not a reliable source. Done (change done by Tbrandley (talk)) Koopatrev (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this on hold until these problems are solved.

This article is going to fail if no changes/improvements are to be made by June 9, 2012, 08:48 (UTC).Koopatrev (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review (template)

Final review (sorry I'm over an hour late but that's ok) Koopatrev (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is well written.

Prose quality:

Follows MOS:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable;.:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

The "cultural references" section is still lacking some sources for some statements. In source 3 you don't really see anything that says anything about the cultural references of this episode.

3. It is broad in coverage:

Major aspects:

The section for reviews from critics in the "reception" section is still missing. However there is still a part for U.S. viewers and ratings.

Focused:

4. It is written in a neutral point of view.:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars etc:

6. Includes images, where appropriate.:

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

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

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Sorry this probably has to fail, some parts are still lacking information.