Jump to content

Talk:Pulling Strings (White Collar)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePulling Strings (White Collar) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pulling Strings (White Collar)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Wikilink "Third season" in the lead
    Sources aren't need in the lead. I'd move [1] down to the "Ratings" section
    Wikilink "Stradivarius"
    Do you have a citation to state who directed what? Maybe just cite the episode itself
    "Upon it's premiere, "Pulling Strings" drew 2.469 million viewers, which at the time was the lowest of the series" Comma after 'time'
    "The episode drew 0.8 million viewers in the 18–49 demographic, which was down 0.3 and 0.2 million from "Upper West Side Story" and "Neighborhood Watch" (the previous two episodes), respectively" Change to "The episode drew 0.8 million viewers in the 18–49 demographic, which was down 0.3 and 0.2 million from the previous two episodes, "Upper West Side Story" and "Neighborhood Watch," respectively"
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I know Critical Myth can fly because John Keegan et al have been published in printed sources, but I don't think Reference No. 11 can pass since it's self-published and not edited by a staff of editors
  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):
    The picture in the infobox needs a better caption/rationale
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days to straighten out the issues.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good! I pass.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pulling Strings (White Collar). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pulling_Strings_(White_Collar)&oldid=1203624710"