Talk:Beebo the God of War/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This could be GA quality with a little bit of work, so I am putting it on hold. I will do a spot check of the citations and a source review after the rest of the comments are addressed, since edits might result in reorganization of the article.

1. Is it well written?

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

   This could use a copy edit for grammar, concision, and clarity. For example:

−

The store claims to be out of dolls, until the location of a final one which Stein grabs and runs away with but is chased by a crowd of upset people.

+

The store claims to be out of dolls, but Stein finds the last one, takes it, and is chased by a crowd of upset people.

−

During a panel at Fan Expo Vancouver the cast of ''Legends'' explained that the concept behind [[Beebo (Arrowverse)|Beebo]] was the writers attempt to further delve the series further into chaos.

+

During a panel at Fan Expo Vancouver the cast of ''Legends'' explained that the concept behind [[Beebo (Arrowverse)|Beebo]] was an attempt to introduce further chaos to the series' plot.

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|n}

   1. The lead needs to summarize the entire article. For an example, see my FA October 1. Done
   2. The article has several short paragraphs, which is discouraged per MOS:PARA. I recommend removing the "Broadcast" and "Home Video" subsection headings and combining that material into one paragraph under the "Release" section. In the "Critical response" section, I suggest organizing the reviews in separate paragraphs by favorable vs. unfavorable, or based on the topics the reviews focus on. For an example, see my FAs "Running Out of Time" and October 1. Done
   3. There are some WTW issues. For example, the following lack proper attribution:
      • "Despite initial concerns ..."
      • "This led to concerns the character ..." Done
   4. MOS:FICTIONAL states that "Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)." Sentences like this need clarification: "The legends are then alerted of an anachronism causing the Vikings to conquer America." What is an anachronism? Is this from the perspective of the past – that is, it is "causing" the Viking takeover in the past – or should this be re-written from the perspective of the Legends in the present to say "that caused" instead of "causing"? Done
2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Looks good per check with Earwig's tool.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I recommend deleting this paragraph because it is out-of-scope: The episode features the departure of Jefferson Jackson from the Legends. The characters exist was a creative decision as oppressed to a personal choice. This left the door open for the character to return which he did in the season finale, "The Good, the Bad, and the Cuddly".

 Done

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

2. Is it neutral?

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

   I'm not seeing any negative reviews; were there any? If so, they should be summarized.

   I couldnt find any reviews from reliable sources that were particularly negatvie.

3. Is it stable?

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

   No issues in page history or talk page.

4. 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:

   Please copy-edit per my above comments.

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is almost at GA. To summarize the above, it needs a new lead, some minor reorganization, and a copy-edit with a fine-toothed comb. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made various changes. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've copy-edted the article. Please let me know if you disagree with anything.

Spot check of this version:

• Ref 1b - okay use of primary source / Twitter
• Ref 2 - good
• Ref 7a - good
• Ref 11 - good
• Refs 13 and 15 - not good - WP:IBTIMES is not a reliable source
• Ref 19 - good (ref 18 is unnecessary)
• Ref 26 - good
• Ref 31 - good
• Ref 32 - "Jesse Schedeen of IGN rated the episode 9.8 of 10 and stated that it was the best follow up to the tragic ending of the previous episode." - this is not what the review says.
• Ref 36 - good
• Refs 43-44 - good

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I altered Ref 36 a little and replaced ref 13 and cut ref 15 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.