Talk:Brad Follmer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brad Follmer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 25 January 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.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

•  Done In the Character arc, "He did not believe in the X-files and deliberately showed disrespect to John Doggett by calling him "Mr. Doggett" instead of "Agent"..", I believe one period should be suffice.
  • Check.
•  Done Same section, "...Follmer shot dead the mobster", the start of the sentence doesn't read well.
  • Check.
•  Done In the Conceptual history, you might want to say what Chris Carter's role was in the show, "creator", "executive producer", etc.
  • Check.
•  Done Do the same for Frank Spotnitz in the second paragraph.
  • Check.
•  Done Also, you might want to say "British actor" for Cary Elwes in the same section. It's mentioned in the lead, but people do tend to forget what they read at the beginning.
  • Check.
•  Done Same section, there's something wrong with this sentence ---> "Along with announcing the character, the said the character would only appear in six episodes."
  • Check.
• Same section, "When describing his character to The Hollywood Reporter, Elwes said he "is a guy who is a little more buttoned up, a little more polished; he represents a different kind of FBI", why is that stated twice?

• Can you please explain what you mean by "twice"? Mephiston999 (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • When I first reviewed the article, the Hollywood Reporter bit was mentioned twice. See here, but it was removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I cant find any source saying how he was received by the public or critics. Maybe its because he is not a major character, and when he was introduced he didnt have an important role. Mephiston999 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • If there's none, then I guess there's none. I was just wondering whether or not their were sources available. Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

•  Done In the lead, please link "unfriendly" to its correspondence article.
  • Check.
• Also, in the lead, you might want to make a note saying if the character was well received or not. (Ex: James Wilson).
  • Half-check.
•  Done In the Conceptual history section, please link "The Hollywood Reporter" and "Annabeth Gish" once.
  • Check.

1. 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:

   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:

2. 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):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. 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:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One little bit left. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Mephiston for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brad Follmer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114131854/http://airlockalpha.com/node/319 to http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/319

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)