Talk:Worlds Apart (Fringe)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWorlds Apart (Fringe) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 4, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 15, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a scene in the television series Fringe received praise for featuring two versions of the same character conversing together?

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Worlds Apart (Fringe)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. I'll begin by doing a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues here, and then will turn to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough[edit]

This is very well-written, and remains clear to someone who doesn't watch the show despite the confusion of the plot (parallel universes, etc.).

  • "The idea of shutting down the bridge created by the Machine is brought up" -- by who?
  • "plans are made to shut down the bridge before this time runs out" -- by who?
  • "known for his work on the science fiction television series Supernatural and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles among others" -- not sure "among others" is needed in this sentence, which is a bit wordy.

Since these points are so minor, I'm heading straight to the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I removed "among others", but will have to rewatch the episode to clarify who says what (I'm planning on buying the S4 DVD one of these days...). Ruby 2010/2013 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure--thanks for your work on this one, and, from what I see on your user page, many others! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is clear and correct, and spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. 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).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Image is well-selected, as it was identified as the episode's highlight.
7. Overall assessment. Obvious pass -- very solid work.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.