Talk:The Star-Spangled Man/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Dcdiehardfan (talk · contribs) 02:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Sounds good, I'm glad to be working with you again, and much gratitude to @Adamstom.97 for resolving some concerns while I was in school. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	" Rodeo also created an eight-kilometer-long (five-mile-long) highway that the trucks could drive on." Given that the show is American shouldn't the Kilometer and Miles be reversed? I couldnt find anything in the mos but given the American English tag I think miles should be the primary.  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) The release section is quite short could it be merged with reception or marketing? If it needed to be merged with another section then it could be merged back into the development section, but consensus from previous MCU episode GA reviews was that this was the bare minimum amount for a separate, short release section. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Adding to this, as Adam noted, through past discussions (mostly with WandaVision episodes), with just initially having the release date on Disney+, it was not justified to have a standalone section. However, once more release-specific info was made available (in this case, home media info), it was warranted to separate back out to its own subsection. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Consider adding {{Template:TV ratings}} We don't use this for any of the MCU episode articles and I'm not sure it would be an improvement, it seems to put the focus on review ratings rather than their actual thoughts and not all reviewers give a rating. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	Ref from rev 1217277621 Twitter is used twice, 45 is backed up by two other non twitter sources so I think it should be removed. Both of these tweets are announcing and releasing the posters that we use in the infoboxes, so that is why we have included these refs. 45 is backed up by other sources but it is still the original source that they are referring to so I don't see much point in removing the direct ref. They both come from the official Marvel Studios account so they are not unreliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The "development" section seems out of scope given that its about the series and not the episode, this excludes the last line which should be under "writing" It is a very brief summary of the development of the series to give context for this article, including what the idea behind the show is and who made the episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Adding here too, given it is difficult to discern any explicit development info for this episode specifically, having the general background development for the series is helpful to give context to the episode to know it's intended tone, the hiring of the series' director, the episode's EPs, and then its specific writer and title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Any additional reviews possibly some negative ones? Or just any review with a rating to include in the ratings template? There are no overall negative reviews from any decent website, but I think we have a good spread of criticisms of the episode from the positive reviews. I addressed the ratings template above. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Add alt text to the images  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Its overall a good page all of the feedback has been either addressed or been acuratly explained why it doesn't fit.

Spot checks

Ref 3 Y

Ref 5 Y

Ref 11 Y

Ref 18 Y

Ref 21 Y

Ref 27 Y

Ref 34 Y

Ref 40 Y

Ref 46 Y

Ref 57 Y