Talk:Nuclear Strike (Spooks)/GA1
Appearance
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)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I will review sometime later today or tomorrow. Ruby2010 talk 04:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
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.
- I made a few minor corrections myself, and everything else looks great. Just address the concerns above, and it will be good to go. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 16:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. -- Matthew RD 21:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good. Pass for GA. Nice work, Ruby2010 talk 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)