Talk:The Arrival (Fringe)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 00:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is fine, but the prose in your plot summary needs some work. You'll want a comma after "New York", remove one in "he says, 'it has arrived'", take out the "a" in "he greets her with a 'Hello Liv'", and replace "advanced sort of stun gun" with "hi-tech", "futuristic" or just "advanced" - the "sort of" seems very informal. Also why does Peter need to be kept awake? This isn't explained in the article.

• I made most of the changes you suggested (the plot was written by someone else, so I have that excuse!) And which part about Peter being kept awake is confusing? Sorry, I just don't see which part you are referring to. :) Ruby2010 talk 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   As usual, your referencing and citations are a-okay.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is just as it should be.

3. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral.

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable and uncontroversial.

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Images are used well and are sourced correctly.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Going to stick this on hold until the first point above is seen to. I know you're a pretty prompt editor so this is probably going to be little more than a formality, but I'd rather not rubber-stamp a pass when it can shored up first.|Going to stick this on hold until the first point above is seen to. I know you're a pretty prompt editor so this is probably going to be little more than a formality, but I'd rather not rubber-stamp a pass when it can shored up first.

   I'm happy with the improvements. Passed.

See my reply above :) Ruby2010 talk 02:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading it, I think I misinterpreted what was meant in that sentence, so oops on my part. GRAPPLE X 11:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ruby2010 talk 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)