Jump to content

Talk:Pilot (Fringe)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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:
    This might be me, but in the Plot, "Walter uses his work on fringe science to synchronize Dunham's brainwaves with the comatose Scott's", this sentence reads very odd. Again, this is just me.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Production section, you might want to correctly link "BitTorrent" to its correspondence article. In the Production section, "Abrams said that Torv was cast because she was a combination of "sophistication, great talent, amazing looks and a complexity that is the key to the character being an interesting central character", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here. Do the same for ---> "Executive producer Burk denied the claims, saying that "we hate putting anything out there until it's done, and that's really the reason why you guys didn't get any advance copies" and "Abrams said that while the production crew "freaked out" about the leak, he was pleased that the "response has been much more positive than not, especially for something that wasn't completed yet".
    Check.
  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:
    Is TV Fodder a reliable source?
    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:
    Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reviews! :) I fixed all the above issues, so hopefully everything is now fine. Corn.u.co.piaDisc.us.sion 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for them. I'm assuming for this one. :) You have, though, I'm still "mixed" with the sentence I mentioned above. But, like I said, it was just all me. Anyways, back to business. Thank you to Cornucopia for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Corn.u.co.piaDisc.us.sion 02:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]