Talk:Basic Lupine Urology

Latest comment: 3 years ago by RunningTiger123 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Basic Lupine Urology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 17:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Basic stuff and comments

edit
  • Two references for the production code seems like WP:OVERKILL. I suggest removing one.
    • Done.
  • Didn't find any problems with the article's lead.
  • In the plot summary, change "have a motive" to "have had a motive" since the yam is already dead.
    • Done.
  • I advise archiving the article's sources in case they're deleted.
    • Done. (Though the archive for source 2 seems to be acting up for me – it says it's archived, but it won't load. I'll try looking into it more over the next few days if needed.)
  • No problems with images, production, or information on reception, however, remove the IMDb reference per WP:IMDB/BLP.
    • I assume this refers to the comments in the Reception section, not the IMDb link in External links, in which case – done.
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  

Notes

edit