Talk:Argus (30 Rock)/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: --RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- The only sugguestion I have is in the production section. Paragraph three begins stating: "An actual peacock was featured here." I think it would sound better if you start it by stating "During the episode Jack Donaghy inherits Argus, Don Geiss's beloved pet peacock." then state an actual peacock was used, then speak about the feathers hitting her face and puppeteers being used. It's up to you how you would like to word it of course.
- In the reception section italics need to be added to IGN and Aol's TV Squad
- Comment IGN and TV Squad are websites not magazine publications, so they shouldn't be italicized (Per WP:MOSTITLE). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I got it, not sure. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes that better so that's done with now.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think I got it, not sure. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment IGN and TV Squad are websites not magazine publications, so they shouldn't be italicized (Per WP:MOSTITLE). - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the reception section italics need to be added to IGN and Aol's TV Squad
- The only sugguestion I have is in the production section. Paragraph three begins stating: "An actual peacock was featured here." I think it would sound better if you start it by stating "During the episode Jack Donaghy inherits Argus, Don Geiss's beloved pet peacock." then state an actual peacock was used, then speak about the feathers hitting her face and puppeteers being used. It's up to you how you would like to word it of course.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- No #:::Dablinks so that's fine. Checklinks reveals that ref numbers 10 and 13 change domain. Don't think that's even a problem though is it as I think that website always comes up on the checker, you can strike the comment if you think the same.
- The Star-Ledger's publisher is missing from ref 20. The same for Paste's publisher in 21.
- Yeah, the IGN sources always function like that. Well, the thing is that if I add the publisher to those two refs. then I got to do with all of them, and I'd rather not. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably best to add them all in then. All readily available information.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, the IGN sources always function like that. Well, the thing is that if I add the publisher to those two refs. then I got to do with all of them, and I'd rather not. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Star-Ledger's publisher is missing from ref 20. The same for Paste's publisher in 21.
- No #:::Dablinks so that's fine. Checklinks reveals that ref numbers 10 and 13 change domain. Don't think that's even a problem though is it as I think that website always comes up on the checker, you can strike the comment if you think the same.
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The only image used has all the correct tags and is already verified.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- So not much to do really as it was a well written article, an interesting read for the casual reader. Informative and you didn't go off the subject. Page formatted really well. So yes, it's nearly there now and it shall be passed soon no doubt.
- Pass or Fail:
Reviewer: RAIN the ONE (Talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, it's most appreciated. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations I'll pass it now. You corrected my suggestions really fast and were willing to include the publishers in a quick turn around.RAIN the ONE (Talk) 18:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)