Talk:The Litigators/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the first paragraph should have a reference.
The entire 2nd paragraph needs references.
- I have decided to go with the uncited WP:LEAD format, where all content is cited in the main body and summarized in the LEAD without citation there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None found.

None found.

How about just "Plot" for the section?
- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the plot should be cleaned out, as it's very long.
- Further specific feedback requested. P.S. when Wikipedia:Peer review/The Litigators/archive1 noted that the plot was deficient, I expanded it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw that, and considering the number of pages and other users, it's fine. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None found.

None found.

None found.

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.