Talk:The Dark Defender/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, correctly link "cameo" to its correspondence article. Also in the lead and Production section, remove "inspired" since its a peacock term, per here. In the Production section, italicize "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns", since it is a comic book and per here.

   Done. —97198 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Are The Aquaman Shrine, Buzz Sugar, and Seeing-Stars.com reliable sources?

   The Aquaman Shrine link is an interview transcript therefore it's highly unlikely to be fabricated; Buzz Sugar site has been replaced with the Showtime site since I couldn't find other secondary sources; Seeing-Stars.com uses some photographic evidence to back it claims and its Dexter locations in particular have also been cited by the Long Beach Press-Telegram several times ([1], [2], [3]). —97198 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

   Just needed to know.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! —97198 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome for the review. Thank you to 97198 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again :) —97198 (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)