Talk:Plandemic/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Gerald Waldo Luis in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some Dude From North Carolina, thanks for picking this up! GeraldWL 01:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply


Lead

edit
  • In the third sentence, it should be mentioned that you're talking about the first video.
    Done.
  • Other than that, the image and the lead are well-written without any other issues.

Background

edit
  • "in March 11" → "on March 11"
    Done.
  • The last sentences in a few paragraph need references.
  • "bioweapon control" → "bioweapon to control"
    Done.

First video

edit
  • "in future" → "in the future"
    Done.
  • The last sentence from #Reception needs a reference, and Plandemic: Indoctornation doesn't have to be linked.
    I moved it to Indoctornation's production, since it's more relevant there. The last unreferenced bit's removed.

Plandemic: Indoctornation

edit
  • Fair-use rationale is in good condition, so that's good.
  • Add a comma after "Google".
    Done.
  • "jeopardised" → "jeopardized" (consistency with the rest of the article)
    Done.
  • "had interest" → "had an interest"
    Done.

Sinclair Broadcasting Group

edit
  • Couldn't find any major issues here.

References

edit
  • Sources are archived already.
  • Websites are also linked.  
edit
  • Is the link to Rotten Tomatoes necessary if it doesn't have a score?
    You're right... removed it. GeraldWL 01:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Progress

edit
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.