Talk:Nightswimming (Awake)/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by TRLIJC19 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Review

edit
  • WP:TVRECEPTION
    • "Alan Sepinwall, a commentator from HitFix, was disappointed with the overall storyline of the "green reality"; he claimed that if the episode was only based on the "red reality", the entry would have been "perfectly fine", while Zack Handlen from The A.V. Club thought that if the "red reality" storyline was not featured in this installment, it would not work as an episode." -- This is way too long. Split into two different sentences.
    • "Handlen was rather impressed with the storylines of the "red reality", praised the premise of the "red reality"; and gave the episode a "B+", despite critical comments, and wrote that "Jake reminded me of Al Pacino's aging mobster in Donnie Brasco."; Sepinwall praised Jake's actor, Lawrence, liking to see him on the program." -- Run-on and awkward. For example, you say "red reality" twice right next to each other.
    • "Preece thought that the storylines of the "red reality" were more "interesting" than the "green reality" storylines, and Fowler was disappointed with the song choice of the installment, claiming that the notable R.E.M. song "Nightswimming" should be been played, rather than the song that was played instead, which was "Pain in My Heart"." -- The "be" should say "have", and the second half of the sentence should be removed; it's a run-on and it's redundant of the information given above.
    • This section gives a broad analysis of the episode.

Overall, good job; I am placing this on hold for the above issues to be addressed. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 04:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. I've addressed all of the issues I can for now. TBrandley 04:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
The issues that were not striked still need (further) addressing. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 04:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Outcome

edit
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 (talkcontribs) 05:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.