Talk:Making Fiends (TV series)/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mukkakukaku in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Note: infobox makes it seem as though series is ongoing; it's not.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Variety of referencing problems: lack of references in some areas with quotations; over referencing in others (series of statements with same reference should be consolidated). References in the lead. &tc.
Article is written in an in-universe style. See WP:MOSFICT.
- Variety of referencing problems: lack of references in some areas with quotations; over referencing in others (series of statements with same reference should be consolidated). References in the lead. &tc.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Quotations in plot section (ex. first sentence: "hideous things") are not sourced. Missing references in sections "Episodes" and "Cast."
Wiki/editable sources are not reliable sources (see WP:SPS).
Only five sources (LA Weekly, ref #1; Ebola Music, ref #2; Tilzy, ref #3; Cold Hard Flash, ref #16; Commonsense Media, ref #26) are independent, verifiable, secondary sources.
- Quotations in plot section (ex. first sentence: "hideous things") are not sourced. Missing references in sections "Episodes" and "Cast."
- C. No original research:
- An episode itself should not be used as a source; a review of an episode is appropriate. The episode itself is the material in question, a review would be a primary source, something incorporating information from a review would be a secondary source. In referencing the episode directly, one must do original research to draw conclusions. See WP:PRIMARY.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- See comments re: Neutral (next point).
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- While article claims that reviews are "fairly positive", there are no references to negative reviews or negative responses.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- File:Charlotte-house.png and File:Making_Fiends_classroom.jpg claim to be press release/promotional work but I cannot find any evidence of this.
File:Mking-fnds-logo.jpg is lacking the {{Non-free television screenshot}} license.
- File:Charlotte-house.png and File:Making_Fiends_classroom.jpg claim to be press release/promotional work but I cannot find any evidence of this.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- The article is currently suffering many problems, especially the lack of notable, verifiable, independent sources and a complete failure to adhere to the Manual of Style in regards to writing about fiction. While these are all fixable, overall the article has too many issues to deserve a hold. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
