Talk:All things/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Given that the title in all official media (DVD releases, those official series guides, etc) is "all things" and not "All Things", I'd suggest a page move to "all things". If the wiki software won't allow the lower case "a" then correct that with the displaytitle template (the one used to italicise The X-Files). When that's fixed there'll be no need for the aside in the lead mentioning the casing, just introduce it as ""all things" is the seventeenth episode..."; and refer to it with the lower case title throughout.
Speaking of which, "seventeenth", not 17th. Straight numbers can be numerals when they're over ten, but when counting, ordinals are better in words. I'm also not sure we need to know it's the 156th episode overall—that kind of thing is useful for "Unusual Suspects" (the 100th) or "This Is Not Happening" (200th), but arbitrary numbers like 156 seem a bit needless.
- Given that the title in all official media (DVD releases, those official series guides, etc) is "all things" and not "All Things", I'd suggest a page move to "all things". If the wiki software won't allow the lower case "a" then correct that with the displaytitle template (the one used to italicise The X-Files). When that's fixed there'll be no need for the aside in the lead mentioning the casing, just introduce it as ""all things" is the seventeenth episode..."; and refer to it with the lower case title throughout.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Name aside, seems fine.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Ref 3 (audio commentary) should use the
|location=field to note which release it's on (I assume the seventh season box set?). I'm not sure it should use the Surname, Forename order either; could be wrong on that though.
Not familiar with DigitallyObsessed, what's their editorial policy like?
- Ref 3 (audio commentary) should use the
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Seems alright. Was there any meat in that interview I linked to you? It might not be a bad idea to add it as a source even if it's largely duplicative of other sources, as the audio commentary has a lot of cites and if you could split that between two sources it would look a little better.
Is "Scully's Theme" the one with "we are here" chanted in it? If so, there's some information about Snow writing it in the season 8 documentary on that DVD set if you have it.
- Seems alright. Was there any meat in that interview I linked to you? It might not be a bad idea to add it as a source even if it's largely duplicative of other sources, as the audio commentary has a lot of cites and if you could split that between two sources it would look a little better.
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Seems fine.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Not a problem.
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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 seem alright on their own, but given that Anderson is the sole subject of both, I'd suggest either a different screencap (maybe the dripping water?) or using a different free file instead of the Anderson one (maybe Moby?).
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- OK, I got the name and the citation info fixed. I'll try to get a better pic (that one was the one that was on the page before I started to spiff it up). As for Digitally Obsessed, it's a DVD Talk-esque site that, for lack of a better word, "hires" people to review. Here's their reviewer application. Not anyone can be a reviewer, and the stuff that is published is peer-reviewed and edited.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.