Talk:John Doggett/GA1
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings! I've previously reviewed Jeffrey Spender and as there is a rather large backlog under Film and Television I thought I'd help out and review some more.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Lead edit
Infobox: affiliated with: the X-files should probably lead to The X-Files rather than to x-file
Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Character arc edit
Should have much more CITEs, each claim should have the episode it was referenced in as a CITE.
Do we really need his service no.?
- Done Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Done paragraph three and four both seem to repeat each other and should probably be merged into one (well referenced) paragraph.
Not done. There are only three pharagraphs? --TIAYN (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I see four; para 1 starts with "Doggett served in the United States Marine Corps", para 2 starts with "In 1995, Doggett graduated", para 3 starts with "Initially, Scully and Doggett " and para 4 starts with "Doggett and his new partner," I think that three and four can still be merged.
- Sorry, my fault!
- Really? I see four; para 1 starts with "Doggett served in the United States Marine Corps", para 2 starts with "In 1995, Doggett graduated", para 3 starts with "Initially, Scully and Doggett " and para 4 starts with "Doggett and his new partner," I think that three and four can still be merged.
Done The final sentence should probably be dropped, it makes it sound as though he's disappeared, and (from memory) I Want to Believe makes no mention of him so isn't really a good source for that sentence.
Conceptual history edit
Done "More than a hundred actors" and should use <ref name=doggettjohn> to support that claim.
Done <ref name=doggettjohn> doesn't support the claim that "Lou Diamond Phillips and Hart Bochner" both auditioned for the part. Can another CITE be found? If not the claim should be removed.
Done "In an interview Chris Carter said" it's the first mention of Chris Carter in the article and should have his full name.
Done "the show was shooting its pilot episode entitled L.A. Sheriff's Homicide" Was that the name of the show or the name of the pilot episode? If it was the name of the pilot what was the show called?
Done "Carter had previously named" that sentence also needs a CITE.
Reception edit
Done I've added a {{who?}} tag to the claim "Some fans". The sentence also needs a CITE.
Done "saying "everybody likes Robert Patrick and the character," " is a direct quote and needs a CITE.
References edit
Done As stated here it needs to be better clarified who was doing what. I would also suggest that the episodes be wiki-linked using the "episodelink =" parameter.
Done CITE eight actually has two authors, using "first1=|last1=|first2=|last2=" will allow you to cite both.
Done CITE 10 and 18 are {{dead link}}s. Can it be re-found on the new website or found via the internet archive?
- I removed one of the dead links, i can't seem to the find the second. I've checked through all the references but can't seem to find the second one.
Done Several CITEs have incomplete "accessdate=" parameters, they all name the day and month but not year.
Done CITE 20 needs to be properly formatted.