Talk:The 12 Days of Christine/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by J Milburn in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey there, J Milburn, I'd be happy to review this one. Your articles on Inside No. 9 episodes are actually what turned me on to the show and this was my favorite episode of the second series. I'll ping you again when I'm done with the review but feel free to address points I make before then. All the best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Compared with Copyvio Detector; no significant copyvio or close paraphrasing found. Article is succinctly written and free from major errors. MOS compliance checked; lead is strong, layout is good, word choice brings up no red flags, and there are no lists to quarrel over. All around, superb work with the prose, especially in integrating reviews; you've done this very fluidly.
- a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Meticulous sourcing to online and offline sources; consistent citation style. You've made this review very easy!
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Absolutely. Stays focused on the episode and avoids tangents.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The reaction section is duly glowing, in line with critical consensus. The rest of the article is also neutral.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Mostly the fruit of J Milburn's labors, with the off (if helpful) edit from someone else.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- One image in infobox; non-free and tagged with sufficient use criteria.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Exemplary job with this one, and thanks for your coverage of this clever show! I'm happy to ✓ Pass it. Thank you for making my job so easy by bringing this to such a high quality before taking it to GAN. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 14:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll mention that, looking over the review of "La Couchette", there are a handful of changes that could be applied to this page, namely the first few comments about the background information on Inside No. 9 in the article's first paragraph. My view is that a little background on a parent topic within a child article (TV program→episode), so long as it's kept short, is not a bad idea and I do not see it as undue weight or lack of focus. You may certainly apply those comments to this article if you see fit but from my perspective, they do not disqualify this article from passing GA at all. Likewise, the external video box seems to be a matter of personal preference. The quote box in the Interpretation section is uncited and also not well connected to the discussion in the section, so if anything, I'd suggest taking that out. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review and kind words. I will indeed be incorporating some of Snuggums's suggestions in other articles in the coming days! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll mention that, looking over the review of "La Couchette", there are a handful of changes that could be applied to this page, namely the first few comments about the background information on Inside No. 9 in the article's first paragraph. My view is that a little background on a parent topic within a child article (TV program→episode), so long as it's kept short, is not a bad idea and I do not see it as undue weight or lack of focus. You may certainly apply those comments to this article if you see fit but from my perspective, they do not disqualify this article from passing GA at all. Likewise, the external video box seems to be a matter of personal preference. The quote box in the Interpretation section is uncited and also not well connected to the discussion in the section, so if anything, I'd suggest taking that out. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Exemplary job with this one, and thanks for your coverage of this clever show! I'm happy to ✓ Pass it. Thank you for making my job so easy by bringing this to such a high quality before taking it to GAN. Best, BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 14:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
