Talk:Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


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:
    In the lead, this is just me, but this ---> "At the time of the broadcast, Governor Palin was the Republican Party Vice Presidential nominee", doesn't sound right, cause the elections are still going on, so "was" hasn't been determined yet. I know I'm wrong with this, but this is just me.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Response section, this is a question, why is "John McCain" linked instead of his "campaign"?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    In the Response section, I know that ref. 17 does cover this ---> "When asked how she felt about Fey's portrayal, Sarah Palin replied, "I watched with the volume all the way down and I thought it was hilarious. . .I didn't hear a word she said, but the visual was spot on", right? If not, a source is needed.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!
I think i've sorted all these points. Thanks for the review. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome on the review. Thank you to Jamie jca for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. BTW, Hilarious sketch. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]