Talk:Boardwalk Empire (Boardwalk Empire episode)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article's lead is too short - see WP:Lead, the plot section is too long - see WP:PLOT, and the cast list is not informative and is unsourced - see WP:Embed and WP:Verify. GAN on hold for an initial seven days to allow these issues to be dealt. A fuller review will follow when those issues have been attended to. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work has been done on the article, so I'll extend the hold for another seven days to allow the lead to be developed with more information from the Production section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Pass

There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable - there are no edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. I would prefer plots to be sourced - they are not difficult to source as generally there are plot summaries available; however, current consensus is that plots don't require sourcing as the TV show/film/book itself is felt to be an appropriate source. The article is appropriately sourced according to guidelines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unbiased. Seems fair and neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage seems appropriate, and in line with other TV pilot articles. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query

There are two non-free images, and the rationales are a little vague for both. Look at the rationale for File:SG1-10x06 wizard of oz spoof.png, which is more detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold[edit]

I've done some work on the lad, but I have included too much plot, and not enough production. The plot paragraph should be trimmed back, and more production details included. Extend hold for seven days (to 11 Jan) to allow this to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass[edit]

I have finished off the work. There really wasn't much to do. Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]