Talk:Cobra Kai season 2/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Cobra Kai (season 2)/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: I'ma editor2022 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Introduction
[edit]Hi, and thanks for nominating Cobra Kai (season 2) for Good Article status. I'm planning on reviewing it. I might have some comments on the article and may need you to do some adjustments to the article so, if I do, please keep up to date on your Talk page/notifications.Also, please remember this process may take up to 7 days. Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Good Job
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- Does not cite any sources in " Episodes " section ( which is only necessary for date and "Directed by"/"Written by" and preferrably release date), " Track listing "," La-La Land Records bonus tracks ", and " Cast and characters sections ". Sources are verifiable and good but few in those sections. But citations are plentiful for everywhere else.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Thanks for the use of quotations!
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Please add citations to verify information in the above sections which I have stated, otherwise I think it could be a great, no Good article! I will give you 7 days to repair the article to GA standard. That will be until Jan.25
- Generally from my experience sources aren't required in these sections because they are sourced from the episodes themselves. Cobra Kai (season 3) is an example that already passed a Good Article Nomination. Similar good articles of mine that don't include citations in these places are Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 8), MacGyver (2016 TV series, season 1), and Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series, season 1). Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please add citations to verify information in the above sections which I have stated, otherwise I think it could be a great, no Good article! I will give you 7 days to repair the article to GA standard. That will be until Jan.25
- Pass or Fail:
- Well, i'm not going to act pretentious, because this is my first review for GA nomination, but I consulted a GA mentor, and I got the suggestions from him. If you wish, you can get the discussion here. Also, the specific information (not the synopsis of each episode), does need citations to remain verifiable (when I say "specific information" I mean dates,"Directed by"/"Written by", release dates, and so on as stated above). | Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mean this in a rude way, but as I stated this isn't my first GA nomination. In no other nomination have I ever been asked to verify the director or writer, these credits are given within the episode. Grey's Anatomy (season 17) is a featured article, or an article that represents Wikipedia's best work, that I worked extensively on. Eight people reviewed it, and not one questioned the director or writing credits. The air date is only sourced there from when the season was still airing, because future dates need a source. Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1), Parks and Recreation (season 1), Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), and True Detective (season 1), are all further examples of featured articles that do not have sources in these places. I will mention that from a quick glance it does not appear the editor you reached out to is familiar with television-related articles. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone has their preferred areas of editing, but it does mean they may not be knowledgeable in MOS:TV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I suppose I can give a Pass for GA reviewership, since I have reviewed the MOS:TV and it says not applicable/negligible information on references and citations (I will say though that I did read the MOS:TV before), and that there is a section on references, but I will say it is extremely short, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a Pass. | Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pass and reviewing the article. I hope I didn't give you too much trouble for your first review
. If you choose to review any other television articles and have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to me and I'll try to assist! Hope you have a great day 
. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's ok, and thank you! | Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pass and reviewing the article. I hope I didn't give you too much trouble for your first review
- Ok, I suppose I can give a Pass for GA reviewership, since I have reviewed the MOS:TV and it says not applicable/negligible information on references and citations (I will say though that I did read the MOS:TV before), and that there is a section on references, but I will say it is extremely short, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a Pass. | Remember, Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mean this in a rude way, but as I stated this isn't my first GA nomination. In no other nomination have I ever been asked to verify the director or writer, these credits are given within the episode. Grey's Anatomy (season 17) is a featured article, or an article that represents Wikipedia's best work, that I worked extensively on. Eight people reviewed it, and not one questioned the director or writing credits. The air date is only sourced there from when the season was still airing, because future dates need a source. Homicide: Life on the Street (season 1), Parks and Recreation (season 1), Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), and True Detective (season 1), are all further examples of featured articles that do not have sources in these places. I will mention that from a quick glance it does not appear the editor you reached out to is familiar with television-related articles. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone has their preferred areas of editing, but it does mean they may not be knowledgeable in MOS:TV. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
