Talk:Welcome Wagon (Veronica Mars)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold[edit]
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 15, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
- Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
- NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
- Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you.
- Please see this analysis https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Welcome+Wagon+%28Veronica+Mars%29&oldid=&action=search&use_links=1
- Please try to trim and/or remove and/or paraphrase quotations, to get each of those sources at that analysis down below thirty percent (30%).
- I will revisit the analysis at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Welcome+Wagon+%28Veronica+Mars%29&oldid=&action=search&use_links=1 to check your progress with trimming down amount and size of quotes and paraphrasing.
- Please change Synopsis to Plot synopsis.
- Zero need for that huge big blockquote in Production sect, please remove it and/or trim to a shorter quotation or paraphrase it.
- Lede intro sect is a bit short. Per WP:LEAD, should function as a standalone adequate summary of the entire article's contents. I would suggest at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each.
- Lede intro sect doesn't really summarize Plot sect, doesn't have a beginning, middle, and most importantly, ending.
- Casting sect, could be broken up into four smaller paragraphs, for ease of readability for our readers.
- Reception - could just combine those daughter sects, call the whole sect Critical reception, and merge that small two-sentence-long paragraph on Ratings into the first new paragraph of that sect.
- 2. Verifiable?: A couple links have problem, Service Unavailable, per here http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Welcome_Wagon_%28Veronica_Mars%29
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Perhaps break Production sect into other sub-daughter sects within parent Production sect, like for example Writing. You may find more ideas for that at WP:MOSFILM and good model at Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: "The episode received mixed to positive reviews." I don't think there's enough in the lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD about this info -- especially compared to the sheer size of the Reception sect. Suggest adding names of a few publications and paraphrase what they said, in the lede, some positive, some negative and/or mixed.
- 5. Stable? Stable upon inspection both article and talk page going back to June 2015.
- 6. Images?: 2 images used, both hosted by Wikimedia Commons, both check out okay upon my image review on their image pages there.
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Cirt: Thank you so much for the incredibly thorough review! I have responded to all comments, including getting the quotes down to 25% and fixing the refs in addition to organization things. Let me know if you have any other comments and I will respond to other reviews soon. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please acknowledge if you've read over the instructions to at least familiarize yourself with how to respond to the suggestion for the option to consider for my suggestion number 3 ? — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Cirt: I do a lot of GA reviewing actually. I'm one of five editors in the final round of the GA Cup this year, and I didn't get there without reviewing anything. See User:Johanna/GA reviews for a partial list of my reviews as of last month, and check the page history for WP:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/Johanna for some of my more current reviews. So yeah, I've definitely done my fair share :) I didn't respond to it because I thought it was just a standard part of the template. Looks like you're chopping away at this backlog, which is great and I'll keep trying to do the best that I can. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please acknowledge if you've read over the instructions to at least familiarize yourself with how to respond to the suggestion for the option to consider for my suggestion number 3 ? — Cirt (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
GA Reviewer notes upon reevaluation[edit]
- GA Nominator quite successfully chopped down on quotes, per my revisit to the Copyvio Detector tool.
- Links now look okay at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Welcome_Wagon_%28Veronica_Mars%29 -- not great, suggest archiving some more of those, but much better.
- I see a lot more of my recommendations were implemented, including sect names changed.
- Lede intro sect has been expanded, and looks much better.
- Cast sect looks much better.
- Reception sect looks much better.
- Neutrality issues successfully addressed.
- Images still pass.
- Stability still pass.
- GA status will be posted, below. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Passed as GA[edit]
Thanks very much to Johanna for the kind and polite responsiveness and professional demeanor successfully addressing my above suggestions. — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)