Jump to content

Talk:Of Human Action/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 19:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


More Fringe. Still haven't watched a lick of it.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Writing is grand. I've fixed a few pieces here and there but that should be it fine now.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Overall, grand. I'm not sure you need the sub-headings under Reception, as neither is particularly long. It's ultimately your call, though.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Citation isn't a problem, it's all fine.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Focus is great, not too much or too little.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is neutral.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Article is stable.
  6. 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:
    N/A. Had a look for anything free and relevant but I turned up nothing. Not a problem though.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Going to pass this one. Clean and simple. Though keep an eye out just in case a relevant free image turns up - one of the guest stars or the like, I suppose. Would definitely aid the article, but it's not necessary at the minute. Well done!
Thanks for the review! :) Ruby2010 comment! 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]