Talk:Pinkeye (South Park)/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    In the Plot although I am very familiar with South Park those who are not might not know who "Mayor" is. Might want to add the mayor's name. Cause, the sentence seems as Mayor Barbrady. In the Production section, "the frist ones"?
    Check.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    Dates aren't supposed to be linked. In the Release section, "It was included in the second volume, which also included the episodes An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig, Death and Damien [...] which included Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, Merry Christmas, Charlie Manson!, Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics, Korn's Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery and Starvin' Marvin, the episodes are not supposed to be italicized.
    No, that was the only date that I saw that was linked. And, check for the episodes format.
  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:  
    Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review! I think I got everything; the only linked date I found was in the infobox, which I dropped; if there are others I missed, please feel free to point them out, or drop the wikilinks yourself. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. Thank you to Hunter K. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply