Talk:The Asset (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the last paragraph of the lead, I think the clause "according to Nielsen Media Research" would work better at the end of the sentence instead of the middle. In the Plot section, the comma in "transport, where" isn't needed. The sentence "Learning of Hall's..." could be split apart after the word "wreckage". The commas around "fueled by the rare..." aren't needed. By "digger", do you mean "Excavator"? I think "hacktivist" should be linked. The first sentence in the second paragraph in Plot would read better if it were reversed - mention Quinn is having an announcement in Malta, then mention that Skye gets into it. In Visual effects, I'm not sure the in is needed in "animated in around that". The first sentence in Music can be split in two for easier reading. In Ratings, "timeshifted" needs a wikilink. The comments from Sims in Critical response need to be broken apart. Nerdist can be linked. Bernardin's comments could be split apart as well.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   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:

   In the development section, it says "Liberties were taken when adapting the character." Is it possible to give an example, citing a specific comic for the difference?

   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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   WP:ALT text needed.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Some copyediting needed, but no major issues.

   Thanks again Argento! I've gone through your points for c/e, and I've found some stuff on the changes made in adapting Graviton for the episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   Looks good. All it's missing now is some alt text for the image. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

    Done - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   Great work! Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)