Talk:Walkabout (Lost)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.|


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:
    {{subst:#if:Well done.|Well done.|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:In the lead, "It first aired on October 13, 2004 on ABC" ---> "It first aired on October 13, 2004, on ABC", commas after dates, if using MDY.
    Done.
    Check.|In the lead, "It first aired on October 13, 2004 on ABC" ---> "It first aired on October 13, 2004, on ABC", commas after dates, if using MDY.
    Done.
    Check.|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:Reference 1 is missing Publisher info.
    Done (how I missed that?!).
    Don't worry about it, we all have those moments. ;) Check.|Reference 1 is missing Publisher info.
    Done (how I missed that?!).
    Don't worry about it, we all have those moments. ;) Check.|}}
    B. 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:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:Is "Lostpedia" a reliable source?
    It's an interview with the writer of the episode, and the website is respected.
    Just needed to know.|Is "Lostpedia" a reliable source?
    It's an interview with the writer of the episode, and the website is respected.
    Just needed to know.|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:File:Locke.JPG needs a lower resolution.
    Done.
    Check.|File:Locke.JPG needs a lower resolution.
    Done.
    Check.|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6bcom}}}|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck!|Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck!|}}

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything else? igordebraga 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, that's it. Thank you to igordebraga for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)