Talk:Human Flesh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'll review this article:

Comments

Lead

• Many things in the lead aren't mentioned later in the article. As the lead should summarize the things in the article, I'd expect to see a production section that might mention the writers and the directors, a casting section for the guest stars, or a release section for the air date and the broadcaster. On that note, none of that information is sourced.
• The production code in the Infobox is also unsourced.
• The image in the Infobox will need alt text.
• The article needs a short description.

Plot

• The plot section is too long. It's currently 551 words long, but should be 400 words or less per MOS:TVPLOT.

Reception

• I'm concerned that the reception section largely relies on quotes. Some paraphrasing and additional reviews may help strengthen the section.
• The Metacritic review is for the season overall, not the individual episode.

Background

• This section may be better as part of a development subsection under a production header.

References

• Metacritic.com → Metacritic
• Reference 4 is a deadlink
• Avclub.com → The A.V. Club
• Link The Hollywood Reporter
• The date formats in the reference section should be uniform (they're currently mixed, some use X_Month X_Day, X_Year format, others use YYYY-MM-DD)

Overall

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I'll address this once the comments above are addressed given that the prose will likely change.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See MOS:TV, needs a reduced plot and addition of a production section
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All cited inline, but need uniform dates, corrected links, and the dead link needs addressed.
	2b. 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).	Production code, writers, director, air date, network all need citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above, it's likely not original research, but the above still needs cited.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Quotes and their authors are cited but feel excessive.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Only consists of plot and reception, some basic unsourced production info.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nearly there, I'd confirm this with the removal of the Metacritic rating given that it doesn't apply to this episode specifically.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reduce verbatim quotes in reception section.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Verified through article edit history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Needs alt text.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image relates to the episode.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold for seven days pending response from the nominator. Will reassess if these comments are taken care of.

Hope these comments help! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@MudBurgers 2005: it's been five days with no response, I'll have to fail this in another two if I receive no response. @Dcdiehardfan: I notice you've made a few edits to the article, is this something you've been working towards? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Oh no, I'm just a passer-by editor trying to facilitate the GAR process really, and did some occasional edits just to help out. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

With no response here from the nominator, nor the message left on their talk page ([1]) I'm going to have to fail this article. If the issues are addressed, it can be re-nominated at a later date. TheDoctorWho (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)