Talk:Veronica Mars season 3/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

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

   t's actually really well done. A peer review might help with some very fine points, but this is well done.

   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, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Are these two sources(http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31898 and http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/09/28/veronica-mars-theme-remix-video/) and if so, why?

   Thanks for the review. :) Both TV Squad and Ain't it Cool News have their own pages on Wikipedia, so I guess that gives them some reliability. "TV Squad" is regularly used for reviews, and in this case sources the changes to the opening credits, which I don't think is very controversial. Again, "The Ain't it Cool News" doesn't source anything controversial, just that the website ranked VM first on their list of best TV shows. I'd like to keep the TV Squad ref, but I am indifferent to the Ain't it Cool News ref, and would be more than happy to remove it. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Eh, I dunno. I'd prefer if they were both replaced, but I guess I'm fine with the Ain't It Cool, because it is just a review that you are citing. TV Squad I'd really prefer replaced though, if that's not problematic for you. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   I had a look, and there's not much out there that would be better. Would it be okay if I left the TV Squad ref, but also put this one: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/blogs/realtv/?archive=October%202006 before it. If I have both, I guess that would be better? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   That should be fine. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Done. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Final Status: On Hold while the links are checked out. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Pass NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)