Talk:Sesame Street international co-productions/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Production section, third paragraph, "...created they own traditional puppets" do you mean ---> "...created their own traditional puppets"? In the 1970s section, "...and was broadcast in 22 [Arab countries" is that bracket needed?
Yes, and no. Fixed both. Thanks for the catch. Christine (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the History section and throughout the article, "The World According to Sesame Street" ---> "The World According to Sesame Street" since it's a documentary film, and because films are suppose to be italicized, and might not hurt to link the article. Same section, you might want to add that Sesame Street airs on PBS, for those who don't know about Sesame Street. In the 1970s section, shouldn't "Open Sesame" be italicized? In the 2000s section, shouldn't "Sabai Sabai Sesame" be italicized as well?
Half-check.
Check.
Dude! I was working on this, and you edit-conflicted me! So on the ball! ;) Christine (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was updating your progress and stuff. ;)
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:

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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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:
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:
File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg needs a lower resolution.
Done.
Check.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough. Most of what you caught were silly, embarrassing little errors. Thanks for the review. Christine (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, we've all been there when someone shows us our mistakes, don't worry about it. You are welcome for the review, just doing my job. Thank you to Christine for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]