Talk:Stargate SG-1 season 1/GA1

GA Review

Article (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

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. 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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. 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

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)

1. 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

Fixed, --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. 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):

5. 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)

Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)