Talk:Pilot (The Blacklist)

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Johanna in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilot (The Blacklist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC) @Rp0211: CommentsReply

  • Most people will know that Pilot means it's the first episode, and first episode of the first season is a little clunky--take a look at Pilot (Glee) and Pilot (Veronica Mars) and use whichever construction you prefer.   Done
  • "long-thought-dead" is too complicated and not worded very well. Also, after "long-thought-dead terrorist", put a comma.   Done
  • In the lead, include a summary of the material in the production section as well.   Done
  • "She confronts Reddington to find out what he knows." Does the episode end there? If so, add at the end, "before fading to black, ending the episode on a cliffhanger" or something like that.   Done
  • "Background" and "Production" should be one section, traditionally called "Production".   Done
  • Is the correct term greenlighted or greenlit? I actually don't know…   Done
It is "green-lit" according to dictionary.com. Rp0211 (talk2me)
  • I don't find the publishers in web sources to be that necessary, and they get kind of redundant after a while. Obviously, keep the work parameter though.   Not done
Publishers are okay in the references section as long as the same subsequent sources are not wiki-linked. Rp0211 (talk2me)
Okay, I didn't know that. I personally don't like them but they can stay. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looking pretty good! The only major thing I would say is the reviews thing. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 20:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I addressed all of the points that you listed above. Rp0211 (talk2me) 21:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Rp0211: Congratulations! I can definitely pass now. Nice work! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: