Talk:Leonard Betts/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2012 (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 tense of the first paragraph of the lead changes between past and present, sometimes within sentences. Consistency is important here. Decide which it is to be then rewrite.

   ''investigate the supposed death and regeneration of an EMT named Leonard Betts What is an EMT? should be spelt out here, at first mention, and wikilinked, rather than in the next sentence.

   The episode received positive reviews, with critics complimenting the character of Betts. complimenting isn't really the correct word here. Perhaps "commenting positively on the character" or even just "praising."

   where he finds the attendant's clothes and the bathtub filled with povidone-iodine. what is the significance of the "povidone-iodine"?

   and his eyes were colored with specifically made contact lenses. Don't you mean "specially"?

   The episode positive praise from critics. ungrammatical

   I believe that all of these are fixed.

   :Something that I forgot earlier, the lead does notfully summarize the article. The Themes and Production sections are not covered. The beginning of the Scully cancer arc, the casting, Emmy nominations for special effects - see WP:LEAD

   I tried to expand upon this. I hope it's better.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   What makes The AV Club a reliable source? Is ToddVanDerWerff a specialist or recognized expert? Or is this in fact a forum? What editorial policy does it have, what oversight?

   Chiming in an as involved editor. The A.V. Club is a subsidiary of The Onion, and also has a dedicated editorial staff. The site also categorically refuses any outside submissions of material. (Their policies) I would consider it as reliable, or its staff as specialised as the review panel for any other national or regional newspaper. Well, maybe a cut above The Sun... GRAPPLE X 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks for your opinion, but it doesn't actually address the questions that I asked. I also had to reconstruct the last part of the review, due to an edit conflict. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   I would argue that the site is a reliable source. It has an independent editing staff, is peer-reviewed, and has been used in a plethora of other articles as a reliable source.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, I had not foiund the policy page earlier. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   ref #7[1] is in fact an interview published in the The X-Files Magazine so this is what should be in the cite, with a mention that it is archived at www.x-fileslexicon.com, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

   OK, I believe I fixed this.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Otherwise references are OK, statements are cited, no evidence of OR. I assume good faith for off-line sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is generally good, but Former teenage actor Paul McCrane, who later went on to play the noted role of Dr. Robert Romano on ER, - is it really relevant that McCrane is a "Former teenage actor"? There are other things to say about him, check out his Wipedia article.

   OK, I removed the "former teenage actor" and just cut it down to actor. I feel that adding too much would both alienate the point of the paragraph and dilute the source I'm using.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Was there any negative reaction to this episode - I ask as it was aired in such a prominent slot?

   I looked, but couldn't find anything, at least from reputable sources.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A neutral point of view is maintained.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears to be 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):

   Two images are used, with suitable licensing or non-free use rationale and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, good to go now. I am happy to list this. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   OK, I think I got most of them. Tell me if there's anything I need to do.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

   Just a check-up. It's been 7 days. Is everything OK?--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

   OK, sorry for the delay, real life intervened. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Haha, no prob! I was just worried a little bit. ;) Thank you for reviewing!--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)