Talk:Tome of the Unknown

Tome of the Unknown has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 18, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Tome of the Unknown appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 September 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Cartoon Network asked for Tome of the Unknown, the pilot for the miniseries Over the Garden Wall, to be a feature film, while its director envisioned a three-season order?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tome of the Unknown.

Wikipedia

Cartoon Network Low‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network 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.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review -- passed as GA[edit]

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect could be expanded just a teensy weensy tad bit more. However, I'm not going to hold this one up as it's a shorter article to begin with, so the lede size has some potential in the future for additional Quality improvement -- but is good enough now for WP:GA. I checked with Copyvio Detector which showed no problems at all -- GREAT JOB ON THIS ONE, EXCELLENT WORK HERE !!!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good overall layout and style, good structural organization. Lede intro sect could be expanded a tad bit more, but good enough at this point in time for WP:GA.
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.	Good overall citation structure and layout, duly cited throughout. No issues here.
	2b. 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).	Duly cited throughout, to appropriate WP:RS sources. I checked with the Checklinks Tool and all hyperlinks check out okay, good job !!!
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is reliant primarily upon secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers the major aspects of the topic. I gather from source presentation and general overview of the article that this might represent a good corpus of the secondary source coverage already out there about the topic. Okay for WP:GA, but would need more going forward for possible WP:FAC.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article has good focus, with nice room for additional research and expansion, if the secondary source coverage out there has anything more to say about it. If not, no worries.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is indeed presented in a neutral and matter-of-fact tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I've inspected both the article edit history and article talk page history, both are stable going back to March 2014.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image from Wikimedia Commons, I've inspected the image page there, it checks out okay upon my Image Review.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is indeed relevant to article, as photo of film's director.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed as GA. Well done !!! — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]