Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The lead does not even begin to summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD. There should not be single sentence paragraphs in the lead or anywhere else for that matter.

   ''begins a perilous journey for Atlanta, Surely "to Atlanta"?

   the CDC needs more than a wikilink, spell the full name out.

   On December 1, 2010, Deadline.com reported that Darabont had fired his writing staff, including executive producer Charles "Chic" Eglee, and plans to use freelance writers for the second season Mixture of verb tenses, please be consistent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   ref # 38[2] has nothing about the series. This has been fixed by User:Drovethrughosts. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

   Other spot checks OK, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Appears to cover major elements

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

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):

   Licensed tagged and captioned OK

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, on hold for ten days for the issues above to be addressed. Please go through and consolidate single sentence or small paragraphs, check your use of verb tenses, fix ref #38 and sort out the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

   Ok, thank you for fixing these issues, I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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.