Talk:Journey Through the Impossible/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Onel5969 (talk · contribs) 01:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, comments below. Nice job so far, very few changes to make it GA.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- No copyvios, spelling and grammar okay, and prose flows well. There is a tendency to use words like "thus", which gives the impression of OR. This might be an incorrect conclusion, but since the sources are mostly hard copy, with no on-line links, it is impossible to ascertain. Lead goes over all separate aspects covered in the body of the article; the layout, word choice, and covering a fictional topic are fine. There are no lists.
- Good catches. I don't think there was any OR, but the text was definitely ambiguous enough to give that impression. I've rewritten the potential problem spots.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nice corrections. Issues are gone.
- Good catches. I don't think there was any OR, but the text was definitely ambiguous enough to give that impression. I've rewritten the potential problem spots.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- No copyvios, spelling and grammar okay, and prose flows well. There is a tendency to use words like "thus", which gives the impression of OR. This might be an incorrect conclusion, but since the sources are mostly hard copy, with no on-line links, it is impossible to ascertain. Lead goes over all separate aspects covered in the body of the article; the layout, word choice, and covering a fictional topic are fine. There are no lists.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- There are some peacock terms in the lead and reception section. The reception section also appears to make the play more successful than the sources support.
- Thank you for catching those — I can see how those terms could sound like peacocks. I've also done my best to clarify the difference between popular (i.e. financial) success and critical success, since the play received more of the former than the latter.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- All corrected. nice job
- Thank you for catching those — I can see how those terms could sound like peacocks. I've also done my best to clarify the difference between popular (i.e. financial) success and critical success, since the play received more of the former than the latter.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are some peacock terms in the lead and reception section. The reception section also appears to make the play more successful than the sources support.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Excellent use of images, all are public domain.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- The use of some verbiage is a minor issue, but significant enough to need to be addressed. The neutrality issue is also not incredibly significant, but enough to be problematic. This is very close.
- After correction of minor issues, this is now a GA.
- The use of some verbiage is a minor issue, but significant enough to need to be addressed. The neutrality issue is also not incredibly significant, but enough to be problematic. This is very close.
- Pass/Fail:
