Talk:Pilot (Smash)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Pass. The prose is excellently written and conforms to every WP:MOS guideline I can think of. Almost every factoid and word has a reason for being in the article. What errors there are are very small. For example:
"Also, from January 23 to February 6, 2012, it will also be streamed online at and hulu."

This is a past event, and so the sentence is now worded poorly. This and other errors could be easily fixed with a few minutes of copy editing, and do not interfere with the overall clarity of the article.

Very well done.

1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Pass. The lead section is adequate, but could still be improved upon. WP:LEAD states that leads "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview". Take this to mean that it should at least touch on everything notable enough to merit a section in the article. Thus, the lead should probably spend some more time on conception, writing, casting, and music. This is a minor point and does not merit failing the article.

Layout is excellent.

The plot summary, while not violating any rules, should probably be tweaked to more clearly conform to WP:MOSFICT. That is, the plot summary should contain words that signpost the plot summary as a work of fiction, rather than real world events. This distinction is at least partially made just by naming the section "Plot" rather than "History" or "Events". Where words to watch are used, they are justified with ample referencing.

Good work here.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. I am reserving my decision on this item until action is taken. The references are ample and very nicely formatted. There is one reference that needs to updated, as the link is currently dead: number four, NBCUniversal Executive Biographies. The information needs to be found again and be properly formatted to be useful in the long term. I cannot pass the article on this point until a complete web citation template explaining exactly which part of the page is being cited, who published the information, when the information was published and when it was accessed, is completed.

The reference was fixed.

2b. 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. Hold. Same problem as above. Everything is excellent save that one dead link. Make it a full citation!
2c. it contains no original research. The article is extremely well researched and supported.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Pass. The article covers all of the usual information for a TV episode, and then some. Some of the information in the Production section appears to have been copy-pasted to or from the main Smash (TV series) article, and the argument could be made that the information is better suited in that article, but this being the first episode, the point could go either way and I'm inclined to leave it be.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). At no point does the article slip into minutia, and there is a good reason for all of the content to be present.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Pass. The article presents the facts, and presents both positive and negative comments about the show. The article is balanced, as reviews of the show were mainly positive, and more space is devoted to positive comments than negative.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass. There are no current edit wars, though the article is still being slowly and actively improved by editors. The thrust of these improvements seems to be consistently in the same direction, careful, and for the better.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Fail. The image of Anjelica Huston is CC licensed, but the image of Ivy in the infobox does not have adequate or valid fair-use rationales. The image has been taken from a blog, not an NBC affiliated website or a major publication. The image has not been cropped. The image is available from newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, but at a greatly reduced resolution.

This image is in fact the highest available resolution, not a "low resolution" as claimed, and has been flagged. It is, in my view, entirely replaceable with a low resolution image (say 220px wide) and is a possible candidate for speedy deletion. Another image should be found, or the current image should be reduced immediately. Until then, I cannot pass the article. See WP:NFURG for wikipedia's policy on fair use.

Image was removed. Please feel free to add a reduced resolution of the photo. It was excellent, just didn't conform to the rules of fair use.

6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Pass. Images are used sparingly and correctly illustrate the article.
7. Overall assessment. I reserve my decision. The article has problems that can be addressed simply, but that must be solved before the article meets GA criteria.

The problems were all resolved. Nicely done.

Reviewer: Rawlangs (talk · contribs) 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed all the mistakes NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)