Talk:In Excelsis Deo

Evaluation for GA

In Excelsis Deo SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality	A	A	A	A
Neutrality	A	A	A	A
Writing	A	A	A	A
Sources		B	B	B
Citations		B	B	B
00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with the pictures. The writing is good. Neutral point of view has been achieved as well, however, you don't need the word "obviously" - I removed it myself. A few paragraphs are missing citations. It would be nice if there were more sources.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. Are you talking about paragraphs in the "Plot"-section? The reason why this is not sourced is that here the source is simply the episode, following WP:EPISODE#Reliable_sources. As for the Sorkin-Cleveland argument, there's only one source here because the whole exchange can be found in The West Wing Episode Guide. Lampman 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good reason. Passed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article comments

I'm not a party of the nomination process and am just a neutral observer but I believe the article is quite adequate. Nevertheless, I doubt if it provides enough information to be considered a good article. How about explaining how the episode stands in relation to the other episodes in the season? What other information can be obtained from this article that would not be available from viewing the episode? Zuracech lordum 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In Excelsis Deo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/articles/content/a2134/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/May2000/feature1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928024542/http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2001/02/a_woman_of_infl.html to http://b4a.healthyinterest.net/news/archives/2001/02/a_woman_of_infl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)