Talk:That's So Raven/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article That's So Raven in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. — Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 20:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·

GA Review

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.	The prose and text seems to be cluttered with unecessary inline citations. These inline citations are repeated in the paragraph even when it is the same source over and over again repeated. This makes it hard to read and interferes with the "flow" of the article. Some examples are: [1], [2], and [3]. Although not a official guideline, nor nessecary for GA status, I would suggest reading WP:REPCITE.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Seems to comply with lead section and words to watch . For example, in the lead section it states that That's So Raven ["enjoyed high viewership"], which could be interpreted as a weasel word, but is supported by evidence in the article and thus complies with words to watch.
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.	All citations comply.
	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).	Citations are from reliable sources, however seems very overused. For example, reference [[4]]was used 33 times. Whether this was because of repetitive inline citations (as discussed above), or not, if the prose information is being relied on only that source, that is going to be problematic (although it is most likely because of repetitive inline citations). [isn't the only source that is overused]. Please either eliminate unnessecary inline citations, or get more sources (in case you are using only those 2 sources as supporting evidence).
	2c. it contains no original research.	None seen.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None seen.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes and is comprehensive enough.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	And gives enough coverage of negative aspects.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems stable and dosen't seem there is any problems on the talk page.
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.	Rationales and terms are provided.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant, as it has the logo for the article and a depiction of their caracters, and captions are mostly explanative and relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Since the problems listed above seems minor enough to be but on hold, i've changed my mind and has decided to put this on hold. :)

Response

Hi @I'ma editor2022: Could you please clarify your 2b box, I feel like the link is missing. I am happy to make these changes to fix the article. SatDis (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis:

Sorry, I'm not sure what happened. I fixed it though. Please read it now. :) — Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 22:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@I'ma editor2022: I have removed much of the unnecessary inline citations. For example, I have reduced the use of references [1] and [4] as requested. Please let me know if I have missed any overused sources, or if there are any further changes that need to be made. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Thank you for your edits and fixing it! I will pass this for GA status! :} —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 ^{(Please talk to me:) — (See my work!)} 01:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]