![]() | Gone for Goode has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | Gone for Goode is part of the Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gone for Goode/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Link rot: no dead links found
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
A scene involving a funeral accidentally exhuming the wrong body while investigating the Church case mirrored a similar situation described in Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets from the Parrish case "a funeral accidentally exhuming the wrong body"? Do we mean an undertaker or a funeral director here?Done- I made a number of minor copy-edits for clarity.[1]
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- The article is adequately referenced to reliable sources. I assume good faith for all off-line sources.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Thorough, but not over detailed.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- Two images used, bot correctly tagged and captioned.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- If you can just fix the exhumation bit above, I will be happy to pass this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Good, all is in order, I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that should have read "funeral director", not funeral. I've fixed it. Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)