Talk:Strike Force Five/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 01:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Eagowl | talk | contribs 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, a really nice topic. It shouldn't take too long. Feel free to ask any questions that arise during the review. Below is a list with all criteria, which will be updated as it goes on.

GA Review

(What the criteria are, and 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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, you've done a great job! Most of the criteria are fully met, others have just minor issues, so we'll go through them and the article is good to go.

1. I think the lead section should be improved; notably, I think the first paragraph lacks a sentence describing the format and the idea (or the lack of it) of the podcast. This should go as the second sentence overall, in my opinion.

Lead section and Reception: with many critics praising the cause... Cause seems inept here ("cause" in this context could be considered as "WGA strike" by readers), so, perhaps, "precedent" or "idea" would be better, what do you think?

Post-debut:"Rolling Stone" published a report on October 7... I guess, you meant September 7, unless there was an extended version published later. Fixed it anyway.

Format: Additionally, a thunder sound effect played... Additionally seems odd here to me, and the whole sentencce should be in present.

As noted by one of the peers, Reception section is huge compared to others, while Format is rather small. I would suggest moving part of the paragraph on Strike Force Wives as well as guest appearances to this section, as there were several occassions for both.

3. It feels that major sponsors as well as the results of the podcast are missing, especially given its purpose. Vanity Fair article (ref 16) gives quite interesting details that funding came from a brand headed by George Clooney (although he's not in charge of Diageo or Ryan Reynolds' Mintmobile), which I could not verify by other sources, but the involvement of Reynolds should be mentioned in the article.

Additionally, as I read through the reviews, many mention the patterns in the hosts' behavior within the podcast, which is also a detail worth mentioning.

6. The criteria are met and formatting could be ruined by any images, but my suggestion would be: if additional info on Ryan Reynolds is included, than a photo of him with a caption like: "Ryan Reynolds sponsored the podcast and later made a guest appearance" could be quite appropriate. If you dislike the idea, than it's all right to leave it as it is.

Further comments may be added as I review the article, but they are more than unlikely, thanks to comprehensive citations, which are unusual to such small-scale projects. Eagowl | talk | 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)