Talk:An Unearthly Child/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my comments are open to discussion. It may take me a day or two to finish my initial review. You do not need to wait for the initial review to be completed before responding to points raised. Once the review is over, I will submit it for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In Broadcast and ratings, the table has a column called the Appreciation Index, but the prose calls it the Reaction Index. Both link to Appreciation Index. Is there a reason for the term change?

"To date, the serial has been repeated twice on the BBC" - This phrasing should be avoided per MOS:DATED. I think the easiest fix would be to remove "to date", but you could also use the "as of" template. I'll let you decide the best course.

I did some copyediting, mostly for flow and to avoid word duplication. Please review them in case I missed a British spelling or comma style.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern. AGF for the non-web sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
no concern

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
~~"Verity Lambert, the BBC's first female producer" - this claim isn't cited (or repeated) anywhere in the article. Is it really lead worthy?~~ addressed Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
There has been some recent disagreement about some formatting, but the issues were resolved through edit summaries and the talk page. There is no ongoing content dispute.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
The image in filming is non-free and the rationale is to show differences in the costume. Since the other image is smaller in size and not juxtaposed with this one, it would be helpful to describe some specific changes. addressed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There are a couple points in 1A that I didn't feel comfortable changing myself. Otherwise, this one's in good shape - nice work! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Argento Surfer! I've gone through and addressed your comments. Let me know if you have any more concerns. – Rhain ☔ 05:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]