Talk:Chuck Versus Santa Claus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 talk 16:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

The lead is does not adequately summarize the entire article, and the plot section is far too long (almost as long as the rest of the article!)
Also, the reception section looks awkward, and does not flow well (i.e. too many short paragraphs' combine reviews together into one or two paragraphs). Typically the ratings part should be at the beginning of this section (like in Adrift (Lost)).

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

The article is far to reliant on IGN. Also, IMDB is not a valid source.
The cultural references section contains sentences with no citations.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

The article's production section is uncited and incomplete.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

The two images from Chuck do not provide sources, and their fair use rationals don't really justify their inclusion.

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Based upon my comments above, I feel this article unfortunately needs too much work to be passed for GA this time around. I can tell you are passionate about the subject, and dislike failing an article. I recommend looking at other GA episode articles, such as Floyd (30 Rock), Dream Team (The Office), or Stranger in a Strange Land (Lost) for good indicators of the GA criteria. Feel free to re-nominate the article once everything has been fixed. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 16:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]