Talk:The Tower of Babble/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be doing this review. I'll conduct a preliminary review and we will fix the issues raised there before I conduct a formal review with a criteria template.

Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary problems:

"He cancelled quality shows". Seems like original research to me, even if it isn't, i dont think it is NPOV compliant. Happy to hear what you think if you disagree though.

"his first new show". Sort of implies ownership over the show. Unless he was the director/producer, seems a little unnecessary?

"The Fall's schedule". Could we change that to Autumn?

corporation's deficiencies, like using the motif "superior losers". Could we change that to "such as"?

Thats everything i've found so far. If you need any help fixing any of them let me know. Retrolord (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made the suggested edits. [1] Regarding the "He cancelled quality shows", I am trying to refer to award-winning/critically-acclaimed shows in a succinct way. maclean (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).	Detail seems appropriate in all sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral
	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.	Thanks for getting the fair-use rationale Retrolord (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm satisfied that we have fulfilled all the criteria here and dealt with the issues I raised. So as a result I am passing your article. Congratulations! Retrolord (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a more detailed Fair Use rationale at File:Tower of Babble Stursberg.jpg maclean (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]