Talk:Of Human Action/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 19:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

More Fringe. Still haven't watched a lick of it.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Writing is grand. I've fixed a few pieces here and there but that should be it fine now.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Overall, grand. I'm not sure you need the sub-headings under Reception, as neither is particularly long. It's ultimately your call, though.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Citation isn't a problem, it's all fine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Focus is great, not too much or too little.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   N/A. Had a look for anything free and relevant but I turned up nothing. Not a problem though.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Going to pass this one. Clean and simple. Though keep an eye out just in case a relevant free image turns up - one of the guest stars or the like, I suppose. Would definitely aid the article, but it's not necessary at the minute. Well done!

Thanks for the review! :) Ruby2010 comment! 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)