Talk:Evan Lorne/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:35, 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

1. 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:

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:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead/infobox

"introduced as a recurring character in the season seven episode "Enemy Mine", " season seven of what? SG-1 or Atlantis? Done

"Throughout the series, it has been speculated by fans that he is second-in-command of Atlantis." typically the lead doesn't need CITEs if the claim is supported by information in the article proper, however this has no supporting claim, so either needs a CITE here, or expanded (and CITEd) in the rest of the article. Done

Character arc

"but the origins of his having the ATA gene are unknown." could do with a rewrite. Done

"that the Replicators take the form of," Done

Conceptual History

 DoneI've added {{fact}} tags to all claims needing a CITE, other than that no major problems.

The whole section is cited?

Now it's correctly cited. I don't make the rules, but we should both be expected to follow them.

Reception

 Done The first and second sentences need CITEs, particularly the direct quotes.

 Done "Many critics have noted Smith's strong fanbase." And these critics can be CITEd?

 Done "They've been known for following his work from Battlestar Galactica to The 4400 and Stargate Atlantis." Boy is this a bad sentence... it reads like WP:POV and WP:FANCRUFT and has no CITE stating who "They" are, or that "they" have been following them for all the three series mentioned. This is going to be quite difficult to CITE so removing it is fine.

References

 Done As stated here it needs to be better clarified who was doing what.

 Done Can CITE 9 be templated using {{cite news}}?

and can we add an ISSN? That i can't.. i have lost the magazine No problems.

 Done can CITE 10 be link to the direct post?