Talk:Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)/GA1

GA Review

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this one. I didn't know the segment got so much coverage! Johanna(talk to me!) 17:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for offering to review this article. I look forward to addressing any concerns you may have. (And yes, the segment received quite a bit of coverage!) ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comments

  • Can you summarize notability discussions (AfDs, etc.) and explain why there was consensus to keep the article in its current form? (I agree with you that it's notable, but I would just like to hear what happened)
    • There has not been a discussion with consensus to keep the article. The article was originally called "Jeff the Diseased Lung". Much discussion about the article was related to the old version. Since then, it has been expanded to cover the segment in its entirety and not just the mascot. I think notability is clearly evident at this point, and no one has raised concerns with the current version of the article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't think bolding Jeff the Diseased Lung and #JeffWeCan is correct.
    • Both terms redirect to this article and are possible search terms people could use to access this article. I believe that makes them appropriate for bolding. I feel strongly that the mascot's name should remain bolded, but I feel less strongly about the hastag. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • The lead should be split into two paragraphs IMO.
  • "with some outlets..." this sentence implies that other publications thought differently.

@Another Believer: That's all I have. :) Johanna(talk to me!) 19:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful. I am happy to pass now.

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 (reference section):   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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Thanks so much! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

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.