Talk:The Hawking Excitation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't believe we've met. After Bahadur Shah Zafar grave dispute, I will review this next. BenLinus 1214^talk 18:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get this party started! :)

I know people vary on this in television articles, but I find citations such as the ones in the infobox or after "it is the 108th episode overall" kind of unnecessary. But if you like them, you can keep them—I don't have a big problem with it either way.
I've removed the director parameter reference, since that's shown in the episode's ending credits, but I prefer to leave the other two there.
Link to The Big Bang Theory (season 5) in first sentence?
Done.
I would put the first mention of Hawking at the top of the second paragraph, as this makes more sense from the article's organization. I understand your difficulty here, as the episode centers around Hawking, but I would start the synopsis with "After learning that Stephen Hawking is coming to lecture at Caltech…" and the second paragraph with "the end of the episode features a short cameo appearance from Hawking.
I've jumbled things around in the lead a bit. Take a look and tell me if you've still got any problems with it.
I like the image of Hawking in the article, but maybe it would be more appropriate in the production section than the plot section? Images, and especially real-life photos, just don't seem to fit well with a plot section.
Done.
Link to Prady in the production section?
Done.
Ref 12 is missing a work listed.
Added.
"too ill to do so" maybe? The sentence seems a bit chopped.
Fixed.
I don't really like the phrasing "major" guest star—maybe "celebrity guest star" or some other wording if you prefer?
"celebrity guest star" seems like a tautology to me. I can understand why you dislike "major" but "third guest star" would be untrue. Would "high-profile guest star" be better?
Very much so. I changed it.
Link to "The Stag Convergence".
Done.
Perhaps you should include the typical WP explanation of how to read a Nielsen rating (i.e. "Pilot (The Office)").
Okay; I've tried to explain it a bit.
Saying that it received "mostly positive reviews" before leading off with a negative review is a bit odd. Put positive reviews first, I would say.
The reviews now go from best to worst (roughly speaking).
This is two positive reviews, one mixed review, and one negative review—is that "mostly positive reviews"? I'll let you decide, but I might rethink the consensus.
I think I wrote "mostly positive" back before I had included the negative review, or something like that. I've changed it to "mixed reviews", because you're quite right.
I know it's difficult here because the HuffPost article doesn't have a credited author, but maybe just put The Huffington Post instead of the vague "one critic."
Done.

Okay. I think I've addressed everything so far. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been fixed other than the "major guest star" problem. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. BenLinus 1214^talk 12:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: