Talk:Poughkeepsie, Tramps and Thieves

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Poughkeepsie, Tramps and Thieves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	For he scene in which Veronica asks Keith about the report - for "the" ? Production sect - suggest breakup to smaller paragraphs, as some sentences are unrelated to each other.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede sect is a tad bit imbalanced. First paragraph is two-sentence-long-paragraph. This could be expanded with a couple more sentences, or have lede shifted around a tad bit.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited, throughout, except that one image caption.
	2b. 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).	Please archive all links in article, as article doesn't contain too many of them and shouldn't be too hard to accomplish, with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive via archiveurl and archivedate parameters in WP:CIT templates.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article primarily dependent upon secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Please change Synopsis to Plot synopsis. I'd like to see a few sentences at top of Plot synopsis sect, or if you feel like it, in new sect Background above that one, to ground the reader in some context. Assume the reader has never heard of this show or seen a single episode before. Who is Veronica? Who is Logan? What is the Hearst Lampoon? Etc.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good focus and structural presentation of article sects.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is worded in matter-of-fact tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article only recently recreated, but I'm assuming good faith here and at this time seeing no ongoing disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Upon my inspection on image page, image review itself checks out okay.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please add in-line citation to back up factual info asserted in image caption.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for seven days. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for the review! I have archived all links and worked out the organizational things you mentioned, as well as responding to all the other comments. Let me know how the article looks now. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you make it a bit easier for me to revisit/review, and itemize in a point-by-point fashion, below, what else you did to respond? — Cirt (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I fixed the typo, split the Production paragraphs, balanced the lead in terms of paragraph length, added a citation to the image's caption. I also added a background section, and retitled "Synopsis" to "Plot synopsis". Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 15:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA.

My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to recommendations by GA Reviewer, above.

Much appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)