Jump to content

Talk:The Arrival (Fringe)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS is fine, but the prose in your plot summary needs some work. You'll want a comma after "New York", remove one in "he says, 'it has arrived'", take out the "a" in "he greets her with a 'Hello Liv'", and replace "advanced sort of stun gun" with "hi-tech", "futuristic" or just "advanced" - the "sort of" seems very informal. Also why does Peter need to be kept awake? This isn't explained in the article.
  • I made most of the changes you suggested (the plot was written by someone else, so I have that excuse!) And which part about Peter being kept awake is confusing? Sorry, I just don't see which part you are referring to. :) Ruby2010 talk 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    As usual, your referencing and citations are a-okay.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope is just as it should be.
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stable and uncontroversial.
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are used well and are sourced correctly.
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Going to stick this on hold until the first point above is seen to. I know you're a pretty prompt editor so this is probably going to be little more than a formality, but I'd rather not rubber-stamp a pass when it can shored up first.|Going to stick this on hold until the first point above is seen to. I know you're a pretty prompt editor so this is probably going to be little more than a formality, but I'd rather not rubber-stamp a pass when it can shored up first.
    I'm happy with the improvements. Passed.
See my reply above :) Ruby2010 talk 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading it, I think I misinterpreted what was meant in that sentence, so oops on my part. GRAPPLE X 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Ruby2010 talk 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]