Jump to content

Talk:Not Pictured/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Grabbing this one for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article is fully cited. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) On first look I did query "What's Alan Watching?" and "Give Me My Remote", but having looked into them I no longer have any concerns. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    No issues. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No problem with stability. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images have suitable licences. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All sorted now. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass All issues now covered - nice job!

Discussion

[edit]
  • Synopsis
    • Generally this section should be called "Plot".
      • done
    • Also, given the episode's status as the season finale and therefore wrapping up a lot of plot, I think it'd be worthwhile adding a short one paragraph section before this section to cover the background. Mostly just to cover anyone who is jumping into this article for the first time.
      • done Tell me if you want me to add refs to primary sources.
        • Great - only thing now is that you've got actors bracketed in the background and then again in the plot section. Best just to do it once - especially since it'll cut down on the duplicate wikilinks. Miyagawa (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • done
  • Images
    • Only issue is that you shouldn't put wikilinks in image captions where you've linked elsewhere in the article. Otherwise the images are fine.
      • done

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.