Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear Strike (Spooks)/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: Ruby2010 talk 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I will review sometime later today or tomorrow. Ruby2010 talk 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The character did not say a word throughout the entirety of the episode, yet has such a strong presence, which the producers felt was unique for a guest star in the series. I think the sentence has some tense issues. Did you mean he had such a strong presence? And make it more clear that it was the producers who felt he had the strong presence.
  • When Sam Miller called Cross about the development, the writer included as a last minute addition to the script, and the sequence was shot the next day. I think there's a word missing.
  • There are two disambiguation links that need to be fixed.
Done. -- Matthew RD 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Pass for GA. Nice work, Ruby2010 talk 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]