Talk:Summer Catalog/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the lead, "It suffered from competition from CBS footage of the first round of the 2010 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament" ---> "It suffered competition from CBS footage of the first round of the 2010 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament", just a suggestion, as at the moment it reads strange.
Fixed. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Plot section, please link "Paul Schneider" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. Throughout the article, "Family Ties" should be italicized, as it is a show.
Done. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check.
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):

C. It contains no original research:
Is "CelebStoner.com" a reliable source?
I thought it was, but I've removed it. — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just wondering, you know.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome for the review. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]