Talk:Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece

Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece 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.
Review: September 7, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Notice of Psych episode article review

The individual episode articles for Psych are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of Psych episodes#Episode article review. Thanks. -- Jack Merridew 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one later today. For some reason I hadn't noticed this was a Psyche episode (I thought it was a Spongebob Squarepants episode for some bizarre reason which I know extremely little about!). Anyway, I'll be out for the afternoon, but I'll aim to review this after that. Miyagawa (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to get some time before I went out, so I might as well at least make a start on the review now.

Image: Not entirely sure the infobox image meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines. We've recently had a lot of image culling in Star Trek articles for the same reason, and I'm not 100% certain that this would cut it in a review. However, I'm happy to stick on the side of keeping it for now and someone with a more deletionist mantra can always look at it later.

Yeah, I was a bit shocked at the mass deletion of the Star Trek images. It seemed like a lot of them actually met the NFC guidelines. I'll leave the image for one of the deletionists to decide.

Lead: Is there anything about the critical response you might like to highlight in the lead (any increase to the third paragraph would help to balance the three paragraph sizes)?

Added a couple of sentences.

Image: You don't need to link Steve Franks in the image caption as it is already linked prominently in the article.

Removed link.

Duplicate links: You've got a duplicate link to Christine Chatelain in the second paragraph of Production, one to the Pilot episode in the third paragraph and one to Spellingg Bee at the end of the second paragraph of reception.

Fixed.

Prose is certainly good enough for GA, although there are a couple of short stubby sentences - but that's an improvement over my bad habit of run on sentences. I think once those couple of points are resolved, then this should be fine for Good Article. Miyagawa (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've addressed everything. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy for this one to be marked as a GA now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]