Talk:Mind Over Murder/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this article was nominated a bit too soon, it will get there, it's near, but it needs a lot of work before it can be passed. I was going to put this on hold, but I think judging by the amount of faults I've managed to find (and there are probably a few more) I'm going to fail this for it to be re-nominated at a later date once a little more work has been put into it. I hope you don't mind. :/

Specific

• "placed on house arrest" I think the term is placed under...
• "has bought beer" has brought beer?
• "starts a blaze" a fire is better and simpler
• "plans, programming machine to go" programming the machine
• "not noticing the bar is burning." Doesn't make grammatical sense.
• "As they try to escape the stairs" Needs a comma between escape and the, it means a completely different thing otherwise.
• The first sentence of production doesn't make much sense to me.
• Second Production sentence... why is it suggested that Peter Shin is more than one person? Peter Shin (who have been...) acted as supervising directors...?
• There is an unneeded extra space between para. 1 and 2.
• "episode was derifrom 1930s ved and 1940s" Ummm... has this page been vandalized at some point? was derived from 1930s and 1940s...
• "he goes up the stairs where Abraham Lincoln is he then grabs" Comma needed! Punctuation is poor in this article.
• "but instead of him he shoots his hat which makes a hole through it." Sloppy writing.
• "One of these comes when" What does that mean?
• "responds by asking her to kill her" Again... what?
• "to a news event from the time the episode aired." Which news event? Why isn't this clarified?
• "artical" A quick comb-over would have spotted this sort of grave grammatical mistake. Needs changing to article.
• 55/100 should be 55%
• tv.Yahoo isn't really a very reliable source.

General

• Cultural references section reads a little like a trivia section, but I don't suppose it's that bad.
• Does this article really need an image of Abraham Lincoln?

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Needs a lot of work in that department, found prose and MoS issues. Grammar is poor in some areas.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

   Pretty good overall, just the one slightly unreliable ref.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

   Could do with a little beefing up here and there. Try expanding the Reception section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Well done in that department.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Perfic'.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Comments above.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: