Talk:South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut/GA3

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Had a read over the nomination/review history for this, so let's give it another chance.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Prose style is mostly fine, as is MOS compliance. I'd change "cussing" to "cursing" or "swearing" though, as cussing is a regional colloquialism. Also, the "Critical Reception" section could be its own level 2 header outside of "Release".
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Your references are grand. Everything's sourced and backed up, there's no original research. The claim to the Total Film ranking needs cited though. TF's website may have the article, they post a lot of magazine content online.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article is suitable broad without losing focus. This was listed as a problem in the past and I'm glad to see it has been rectified.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is neutral and unbiased.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    History is stable, no controversial warring etc.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images seem fine, your fair use rationales seem grand.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall, I see no reason not to pass this as a Good Article. I'd still like to see the little wrinkles ironed out, but they're nothing major. Good job.