Talk:Buy, Buy Baby/GA1

GA Review

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

If you question our president, you're a dirty traitor!

— Amber-Louise (Britney Spears)

I have never ever seen this show, so this should be interesting. At the very least, the article does not have serious issues that would warrant a quick-fail. decltype (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Generally, the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct. There's a few issues that I'll get back to, or correct myself.

   b (MoS):

   • No obvious problems here.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Looks good.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • I strongly prefer references to have names, but it's definitely not a requirement.

   • The authors of the articles are unfortunately not available (they have been accessed with NewsBank).

   • Oh, I mean as in <ref name= ... But again, that's of course just a personal preference and not a requirement. Due to the nature of the article, it is probably not particularly useful either.

   • Oh, I see. Yeah, the article is quite small so I don't think it would be that useful.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • The controversy is described neutrally.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • No non-free images.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • I somewhat agree with Andy, but agree that an image is better than no image. It should be noted that several free images of Takei exist. No opinion on whether one would be warranted for this episode

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • No big issues.

Prose

• I attempted to ce the plot, a bit, and placed some hidden comments
  • The changes introduced a few (relatively minor) issues, now variations of the word "compromise" is used three times in as many sentences.
    • "Jack gets on board" worked better. He got on board to what Amber-Louise told him. If you have a better re-write, please let us know.
      • In that case, you may restore the original wording (I didn't touch it). I was not familiar with the idiom. decltype (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I restored it. Theleftorium 21:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The confusing bit was "following her strange behavior towards her ...". I assume that Karen was behaving strangely towards Cricket. I understood it upon re-reading it a couple of times. The fact that I only know these characters by name, makes it a bit more difficult. I suppose it's not all that unclear, but I definitely wouldn't mind it being reworded, if possible.
    • This is what Karen tells Cricket:

Karen: Yeah. When the baby is born, I'm going to put it in a Pringles can and store it in the cupboard, and then when he [Stanley] opens can, the baby pops out, and we'll be really happy.

Cricket: Are you sure you are going to be able to keep a baby alive?

Karen: We're sure going to try. [1]

• I have reworded it a bit. Theleftorium 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Much better! decltype (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I note that one unquoted sentence uses the exact same wording as the source...(The p-word).
  • I think I got it.

That's it for now. Haven't looked at the reception section yet. Will do so shortly. decltype (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The rest looked okay. I copyedited the production and reception a bit. decltype (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm passing it. Good work. decltype (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the excellent review, decltype. I appreciate it. :) Theleftorium 13:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)