Talk:Welcome Wagon (Veronica Mars)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 15, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. 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. Thank you.
4. Please see this analysis https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Welcome+Wagon+%28Veronica+Mars%29&oldid=&action=search&use_links=1
5. Please try to trim and/or remove and/or paraphrase quotations, to get each of those sources at that analysis down below thirty percent (30%).
6. I will revisit the analysis at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Welcome+Wagon+%28Veronica+Mars%29&oldid=&action=search&use_links=1 to check your progress with trimming down amount and size of quotes and paraphrasing.
7. Please change Synopsis to Plot synopsis.
8. Zero need for that huge big blockquote in Production sect, please remove it and/or trim to a shorter quotation or paraphrase it.
9. Lede intro sect is a bit short. Per WP:LEAD, should function as a standalone adequate summary of the entire article's contents. I would suggest at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each.
10. Lede intro sect doesn't really summarize Plot sect, doesn't have a beginning, middle, and most importantly, ending.
11. Casting sect, could be broken up into four smaller paragraphs, for ease of readability for our readers.
12. Reception - could just combine those daughter sects, call the whole sect Critical reception, and merge that small two-sentence-long paragraph on Ratings into the first new paragraph of that sect.

2. Verifiable?: A couple links have problem, Service Unavailable, per here http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Welcome_Wagon_%28Veronica_Mars%29

3. Broad in coverage?: Perhaps break Production sect into other sub-daughter sects within parent Production sect, like for example Writing. You may find more ideas for that at WP:MOSFILM and good model at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

4. Neutral point of view?: "The episode received mixed to positive reviews." I don't think there's enough in the lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD about this info -- especially compared to the sheer size of the Reception sect. Suggest adding names of a few publications and paraphrase what they said, in the lede, some positive, some negative and/or mixed.

5. Stable? Stable upon inspection both article and talk page going back to June 2015.

6. Images?: 2 images used, both hosted by Wikimedia Commons, both check out okay upon my image review on their image pages there.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thank you so much for the incredibly thorough review! I have responded to all comments, including getting the quotes down to 25% and fixing the refs in addition to organization things. Let me know if you have any other comments and I will respond to other reviews soon. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 01:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please acknowledge if you've read over the instructions to at least familiarize yourself with how to respond to the suggestion for the option to consider for my suggestion number 3 ? — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I do a lot of GA reviewing actually. I'm one of five editors in the final round of the GA Cup this year, and I didn't get there without reviewing anything. See User:Johanna/GA reviews for a partial list of my reviews as of last month, and check the page history for WP:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/Johanna for some of my more current reviews. So yeah, I've definitely done my fair share :) I didn't respond to it because I thought it was just a standard part of the template. Looks like you're chopping away at this backlog, which is great and I'll keep trying to do the best that I can. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reviewing! Wasn't asking to review, just if you weren't familiar, if you could familiarize yourself with how to do so, which you are clearly familiar with, so thank you! I'll reevaluate and post up more notes soon, below. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Reviewer notes upon reevaluation

1. GA Nominator quite successfully chopped down on quotes, per my revisit to the Copyvio Detector tool.
2. Links now look okay at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Welcome_Wagon_%28Veronica_Mars%29 -- not great, suggest archiving some more of those, but much better.
3. I see a lot more of my recommendations were implemented, including sect names changed.
4. Lede intro sect has been expanded, and looks much better.
5. Cast sect looks much better.
6. Reception sect looks much better.
7. Neutrality issues successfully addressed.
8. Images still pass.
9. Stability still pass.
10. GA status will be posted, below. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Thanks very much to Johanna for the kind and polite responsiveness and professional demeanor successfully addressing my above suggestions. — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)