Talk:Jake and Amir/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 14:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undertake this review. A first review will be up in the next couple of days. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've copyedited the article, and it satisfies the MoS guides required for a GA.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I don't see any problems with copyvios (lots of Earwig hits, but virtually all for direct quotations) or OR. A couple of source links have rotted (the Cal Berkeley event site, the SoHo Theatre site, and the URL-only source saying that TruTV had decided not to run the show), one is self-published (the IMDB citation, though it may be sufficient for the bare facts of the series), and one doesn't appear to contain the claims that it's cited to support (the Vulture article about HeadGum).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article seems to cover all the significant aspects of the duo's comic career. I've removed the enormous collapsed table of every last podcast currently hosted by HeadGum; the coverage is disproportionate, very few of the podcasts in the list are notable in their own right, and it would be a huge maintenance burden to try to keep the list up date as this article carries on into the future. If we ever end up restoring the separate article on HeadGum, then the list can go there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I cut back a bit of peacock language in the Accolades section, and now the coverage seems neutral to me.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Several images are fair-use rather than free, but they seem to follow English Wikipedia's usual guidelines (low resolution, used principally to allow identification and recognition of the topic, no equally effective free equivalent, etc.) and have rationales appended.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I'd like to see a couple of relatively modest sourcing issues addressed, and then this should be able to meet the standard. If the nominator can provide sources to cover the claims I've listed, then that's great; otherwise, I can maybe edit them out and rewrite the sections a bit so that they're not necessary.

Update: The nominator has rescued a few dead sources through archives, and I've added another source and removed a claim that wasn't supported by the cited source. With these changes, the article now meets the standard and is approved as a Good Article! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Bryanrutherford0! Much appreciated. AdA&D ★ 22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]