Talk:Tom's Divorce

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom's Divorce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   ''Meanwhile, Andy (Chris Pratt) continues his efforts to break up his ex-girlfriend Ann (Rashida Jones) and her new boyfriend Mark (Paul Schneider). Could we say something like "to break up the relationship between his ex-girlfriend Ann (Rashida Jones) and her new boyfriend Mark (Paul Schneider)." As it stands it reads oddly to me.  Done

   ''It amounted to a five percent ratings increase over the previous week's episode, "Hunting Trip". "Tom's Divorce" drew a 2.1 rating/6 share among viewers aged between 18 and 49. It constituted about a five percent drop in viewership from the previous week's episode, "The Camel", This confuses me. One sentence has an increase over the previous episode "Hunting Trip", the next sentence has a drop from ""The Camel">  Done

   Entertainment Weekly writer Sandra Gonzalez praised said she had been awaiting a storyline centering around Tom "praised said"? {[done}}

   There are a lot of "praised"s in this section. Can we get out the thesuarus and use some other words?  Done

   the singing telegraph "divorce horse" "singing telegram"?  Done

   The writing is a little careless at times. Please check it over again.

   • I think I've addressed all of your concerns (except "singing telegram", because as far as I can tell, the horse was a singing telegram, so I'm not sure how to fix it). The error with the ratings was especially embarrassing on my part: the bit about "The Camel" somehow got copy-and-pasted in here when it didn't belong there whatsoever. It's gone now. Let me know if any more work is needed! — Hunter Kahn 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   I changed "singing telegraph" to "singing telegram" I understand perfectly what it is. You had written "telegraph" Please pay attention to detail.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   OK, references check out, all sources RS, the article is adequately cited.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for above issues to be checked. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

   Ok, thanks for addressing tehse problems. I am listing this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)