Talk:Homicide: Life on the Street season 2/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Season 1 went well, let's hope the same standard applies to Season 2, shall we?
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well written. I'd suggest using something like "police officials" or "police chiefs" instead of "police brass", but that seems about it to me.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Grand as far as MOS goes. I'd maybe widen the quote boxes a little, though, as they look a bit thin. 10-15px extra should probably do it.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Citations are excellent. I'm jealous.
- B. 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):
- Everything's sourced and cited appropriately.
- C. It contains no original research:
- Your sources all check out nicely.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Broader than a fat girl's arse.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Sticks to the point nicely. With a short season like this it would be easy to get too focussed on individual episodes but this isn't the case here, which is just right.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Article is neutral and unbiased.
- 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:
- History is stable and uncontroversial.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Images are grand, they're the same as the first season's and checked out fine that time too. :P
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Images are used appropriately, are captioned well, and break up the visual look of the text just right.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Excellent work again, so it'll be no surprise that I'm going to pass this as a Good Article. Keep up the good work!
- Pass or Fail:
}}