Talk:James Wilson (House)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Character biography section, "Wilson, one of three brothers from a Jewish household,[3] has an undergraduate degree from McGill University[14]," the comma needs come before the reference. In the Characterization section, you might want to correctly link "rehab" and "pitbull" to their correspondence articles. Same section, "They reconcile when Wilson forcefully takes House to House's father's funeral", sounds odd and might need to be reworded. In the Concept and creation section, fix the "Lion's Den" link. Same section, there's no need repetition of "Robert Sean Leonard", mentioning it once makes it clear who you're talking about. Also, do the same if throughout the article, if spotted.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I noticed that dates in the references are linked and it would be best if they were unliked, per here. In the Reception section, it would be best if "TV Guide" was linked once, per here.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference 29 correctly link "Peter Blake" to its correspondence article.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the GA review, I think I took care of all your statements. One question, do you think I can list the article for FAc yet or are there things that need to be done first? --Music26/11 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome for the review. To be honest, I would recommend a peer review, so in case I missed stuff in the review, they can be spotted there, giving you more chances to likely have an FA to your name. Thank you to Music for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]