Talk:Stargate SG-1 season 1/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Trust Is All You Need in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
No prblems found checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Substantive review
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
I had to copy-edit throughout for grammar, consistency of tense and clarity. Please check that I have not altered statements in a negative or inaccurate manner. The Lead should summarize the whole article, there is no mention of critical reception. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Done
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Good job on the lead, so no problems their. I've added reception info to the lead now. --TIAYN (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref #3 [1] ; Ref #14 confirms the MPAA R rating but not the other ratings in the statement. I am happy to accept Gateworld as a source, ref #13 [2] but it would be best attributed as in creator Brad Wright told fan site GateWorld .... ; refs #21, #22, #23 are wiki-linkd to non-existing articles - it would be better to de-link the episode names so as not to cause confusion in those seeking out the references. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Done
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Fixed, --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Just a few matters cited above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)- Ok, Thanks for your had work. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)