Talk:Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Exit Through the Kwik-E-Mart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 15:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

• General
  • No disambiguation links, follows WP:TV-NAME, the article is 1503 words (readable prose size).

• Infobox
  • Can you reference the production code?
    • Sure, done! Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lead
  • No issues; follows WP:TVLEAD well.

• Plot
  • No issues; follows WP:TVPLOT well, is a good size at 462 words, and the prose is clear and concise, with no typographical errors.

• Production
  • WP:SURNAME says that after a person's full name is given, they should be referred to by their surname throughout the rest of the article. That said, "Shepard Fairey", "Ron English", "Kenny Scharf", and "Robbie Conal" are repeated in full in this section.
    • Fixed! Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reception
  • No issues; follows WP:TVRECEPTION well, gives a broad analysis of the episode, and does not apply undue weight to any individual review(er).

• References
  • All sources checked; no plagiarism or copyright concerns.
  • The citations are missing publishers.
    • Per WP:CITEHOW, that information is not needed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) You still can have if you'd like, but, its not required, though. TBrandley 14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Coinciding with the above, TV by the Numbers is a work of Zap2it, and should be italicized.
    • TV by the Numbers is a website so it shouldn't be italicized. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Overall, very well put-together article. I am placing this on hold for the minor issues to be addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, and thanks for the review! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Outcome

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): 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):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

With everything having been addressed, this article now fulfills the good article criteria, and is being promoted. Good job to the nominator and other significant contributors. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ending credits

according to the description on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZwJ3BZ6gig the ending credits sequence of this video was made by him. I think it should be mentioned. 209.112.184.130 (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)