Talk:The Curse of Frank Black

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The X-Files (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject The X-Files, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The X-Files franchise on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Curse of Frank Black/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Grapple, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow shortly. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

A first pass shows no significant issues, though I made a few tweaks for grammar and switched one "post" to "mail" to make it more Yank-friendly. Feel free to revert if you disagree with any of these. Checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  • This isn't really an issue for the GA criteria, but wanted to point out that the parameter "director=Thomas J. Wright, et al." isn't showing up for the Second Season notes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review on this one, and the fixes made. Managed to figure out why the |director= field wasn't working; it was using a similar but different template. I remember copying the code from another article of mine so I'm now off to hunt for where it came from to fix it there too. GRAPPLE X 02:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
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.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. A check of Google and Google Books doesn't turn up any significant information not already included.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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. N/A
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. N/A
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA--I see very little to quibble with here.