Talk:Sibling Rivalry (Family Guy)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well done.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- Is TV.com a reliable source?
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- TV.com doesn't look reliable to me - it has links to copyvios on it and is flooded with ads...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, TV.com isn't reliable for cultural references and other stuff, but it definitely is to confirm broadcast dates, and mostly for writers of the episode. I can swap to IMDb if you wish (I personally find that a little better). Or, if you want, I can find another site, either way, I'm okay with it. Qst (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Right, I've replaced the TV.com reference with a Tv.Msn.com reference, which appears reliable. I must note, however, that the new Msn reference does not cover the bit in the sentence about who the writer and director is. I can confirm the information is correct, and will be reverted back if ever sneakily changed, not that this is any exception. Qst (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just add the Cite episode template or add the DVD ref.? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC
- Well, it seems more logical to cite a secondary source, rather than episode itself. Qst (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Very true, the source works fine. But, I was just saying about citing the episode/adding the DVD as ref. to the article. Anyways, congrats you know have a GA in your midst. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it seems more logical to cite a secondary source, rather than episode itself. Qst (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just add the Cite episode template or add the DVD ref.? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC
- Right, I've replaced the TV.com reference with a Tv.Msn.com reference, which appears reliable. I must note, however, that the new Msn reference does not cover the bit in the sentence about who the writer and director is. I can confirm the information is correct, and will be reverted back if ever sneakily changed, not that this is any exception. Qst (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, TV.com isn't reliable for cultural references and other stuff, but it definitely is to confirm broadcast dates, and mostly for writers of the episode. I can swap to IMDb if you wish (I personally find that a little better). Or, if you want, I can find another site, either way, I'm okay with it. Qst (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)