Talk:Pilot (Community)/GA2
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Lampman in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: James26 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Well-written overall. I only made one minor change in the lead. However, I think that the caption for the cast photo should use actor surnames, instead of character names.
- Done
- Well-written overall. I only made one minor change in the lead. However, I think that the caption for the cast photo should use actor surnames, instead of character names.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It's well-sourced in general. The plot summary is covered by WP:MOSTV, and I think this extends to the descriptions in "Cast and characters." In another minor change, I had to move one citation in "Production," in order to provide a more direct source for something (the thing about saving a real-life relationship). However, the TV Guide source in "Reception" is no longer available. I'd like to see whether the comment will be removed or replaced.
- I've come across this problem before; it seems all of this writer's articles from a certain period have gone missing. Fortunately it was relatively easy to find another critic who said practically the same.
- It's well-sourced in general. The plot summary is covered by WP:MOSTV, and I think this extends to the descriptions in "Cast and characters." In another minor change, I had to move one citation in "Production," in order to provide a more direct source for something (the thing about saving a real-life relationship). However, the TV Guide source in "Reception" is no longer available. I'd like to see whether the comment will be removed or replaced.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- The "Reception" section mentions that "others were less impressed," but cites only one negative/mixed review. Is this all that could be found?
- No, but seeing how it received a Metascore of 69, and in the interest of neutrality and due weight, isn't a good/bad review ratio of 2/1 fair? If you want I could perhaps add one or two more good ones and one more poor one?
- Reconsidered my stance.
- No, but seeing how it received a Metascore of 69, and in the interest of neutrality and due weight, isn't a good/bad review ratio of 2/1 fair? If you want I could perhaps add one or two more good ones and one more poor one?
- The "Reception" section mentions that "others were less impressed," but cites only one negative/mixed review. Is this all that could be found?
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
