Talk:Barely Legal (Family Guy)/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

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

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   Is About.com a reliable source?

I think it is. Technically, the URL is animatedtv.about.com, albeit Airport '07 got passed with it in, and I think its reliable. However, I must admit that I think (quite sure its not, but I should mention this) if it is about.com that is a mirror site of Wikipedia. I don't think it is, as the site looks different, but I would encourage leaving this up for a few days to get some other comments, and I'll act on them. Qst (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, no pressure. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just commenting here as I've been asked to provide a second opinion. About.Com is part of the New York Times Company. They have a defined ethics policy, have a set of standards for guides writing on the site and a clear compensation and editorial control policy. In addition, Nancy Basile (the reviewer) has her own bio page detailing her history in journalism. As the article uses the reference to talk about the reviewer's opinion, I'd suggest that it'll be fine. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 13:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gazimoff. Yes, as you stated, I did ask for an honest third opinion via IRC. Thanks again. :-) Qst (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. 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):

3. Is it neutral?

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

4. Is it stable?

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

5. 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:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank Qst for being patient in this review, but it needs to be clear that I was just doing my job of making sure that the article met GA standards. With that being said, congratulations, you know have a GA in your midst. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)