Talk:Pulling Strings (White Collar)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Wikilink "Third season" in the lead

Sources aren't need in the lead. I'd move [1] down to the "Ratings" section

Wikilink "Stradivarius"

Do you have a citation to state who directed what? Maybe just cite the episode itself

"Upon it's premiere, "Pulling Strings" drew 2.469 million viewers, which at the time was the lowest of the series" Comma after 'time'

"The episode drew 0.8 million viewers in the 18–49 demographic, which was down 0.3 and 0.2 million from "Upper West Side Story" and "Neighborhood Watch" (the previous two episodes), respectively" Change to "The episode drew 0.8 million viewers in the 18–49 demographic, which was down 0.3 and 0.2 million from the previous two episodes, "Upper West Side Story" and "Neighborhood Watch," respectively"
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I know Critical Myth can fly because John Keegan et al have been published in printed sources, but I don't think Reference No. 11 can pass since it's self-published and not edited by a staff of editors
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
The picture in the infobox needs a better caption/rationale
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

On hold for seven days to straighten out the issues.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the changes look good! I pass.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]