Talk:Agent Carter season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Grabbing this one for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay, I'll aim to complete the review this evening. Miyagawa (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No stability issues.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Infobox image has a completed non-free rationale.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No issues.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• Episodes
  • Speaking from experience, I'd recommend that you archive the ratings sources - we recently lost a whole bunch of sources as they weren't archived. Zap2it is usually pretty good for being archived, but I've still found a couple of missing ones so it's best to ensure that archive.org has them while you can.
    •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Production
  • "featuring Peggy Carter" - might be worthwhile that you're referring to a character here as this is the first time in the actual prose of the article that you mention her.
    •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "between the 2014 finale and 2015 premiere of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." - perhaps re-phrase to state the season of AoS, and link to it?
    •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraphs of Development and Writing open the same way - "By ..." - could one be re-phrased to avoid the repetition?
    •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Casting
  • Is it worthwhile mentioning that Cooper plays the younger version of Howard Stark in the franchise, while John Slattery plays an older version. I wouldn't have mentioned it based off of Slattery's sole appearence in Iron Man 2, but I just saw Ant-Man and was surprised to see him back again.
    • I'm not sure, just because Cooper already played the character in Captain America and one of the one-shots. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Props
  • Out of curiosity, was there any information available to say whether props were re-used from other productions?
    • Not that we have found so far, but it is something I am keeping an eye out for just in case. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Broadcast
  • The UK information will need to be updated as it is being broadcast on Fox TV.
    •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• General
  • Is there any home media information available?
    • There is some currently hidden on the page, for which we are just waiting on a reliable source rather than Amazon's listing. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's pretty much everything - I'll stick it on hold for the typical seven days now. Miyagawa (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Great - I'm happy to promote. Miyagawa (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)