Talk:Gorilla City (The Flash)/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Argento Surfer in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead
- "Earth-2" is name-dropped but not explained. I think swapping it for "an alternate Earth" (or similar) would be ideal, but a link to Earth-Two#Television could also work.
- Plot
- "Jesse Wells explains" to whom?
- "Barry Allen remembers that in the future" - A phrase or clause needs to be added to explain this to readers who haven't followed the series.
- "captured by Grodd." - who is Grodd? A brief introduction/description is needed here. The article never actually identifies him as a Gorilla until the second-to-last paragraph.
- "Grodd says that he used " - says to whom? Why not just "Grodd uses..."?
- "Barry has Caitlin use her powers to fake his death," - suggest "Caitlen uses her powers to fake Barry's death,"
- "he resuscitates himself" - as someone unfamiliar with Caitlen's powers, this isn't clear. Since the manner of the fakery isn't described, I suggest striking this in favor of "After Grodd leaves, Barry frees the others..."
- "to compel Joe West to commit suicide with his own gun; however, Barry pushes Joe out of the way in time." - does it matter that it's his own gun? I think "to compel Joe West to shoot himself, but Barry pushes Joe out of the way of the bullet." reads better.
- Production
- "Sean Poague appears as Accelerated Man, a Speed Force Conduit " - what's a Speed Force Conduit? It needs to be explained if it's essential for the article. If it just means he's fast, I think identifying him as a Flash is sufficient.
- Release
- "The first part "Attack on Gorilla City" aired on February 21, 2017, and concluded with part two "Attack on Central City" on February 28, both on The CW" - Either add commas before and after the episode titles or simplify as "The CW aird "Attack on Gorilla City" on February 21, 2017 and "Attack on Central City" on February 28."
- "will be released on Blu-ray and DVD on September 5, 2017" - did this come out?
- The BD and DVD release sentence isn't chronological with the streaming release. Is there a reason for them to be presented backwards?
- Reception
- "The story has not yet been fully told, and we’ll have to wait until next week to find out exactly how much ape mayhem this show is really prepared to deliver" - I don't think this line adds anything to the article.
- There's quite a bit of discussion about the CGI's success. I think a well-chosen screen capture from a CGI-heavy scene would improve the article. If you can't find one (or don't agree), it won't sink the GA nom.
- "Waiting for Grodd-o" should link to Waiting for Godot. Not everyone will know that reference.
- External links
- no concerns.
- Lead
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Neither IGN (2 instances) nor TV by the Numbers (3 instances) are linked in the references.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig has some high results (5 were 40%+, 2 were 60%+), but these were all properly attributed quotes.
- 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:
- no concern
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- a split proposal was discussed but ruled out 9 months ago. No signs of ongoing edit wars or vandalism.
- 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The image needs WP:ALTTEXT.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass pending points raised above. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: I've addressed all your comments above. - Brojam (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pass - nice work, and I look forward to seeing whatever image you choose. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: I've addressed all your comments above. - Brojam (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pass pending points raised above. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: