Talk:201 (South Park)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk ) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just list a few things here.


 * Mitch Connor - how does this wikilink help the reader's understanding?
 * Ginger is a disambig page, so you have to know the meaning already to select the right one. These articles have a learning curve.
 * I dropped the Connor one altogether, and fixed the Ginger wikilink. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  21:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wondering if the "Muhammad subplot" section should be combined with the "Censorship" section since it is the same issue. (It is all very sobering.) Xtzou ( Talk ) 22:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial feeling is they should be kept separate, since the "Muhammad subplot" relates to the writing of the episode, whereas everything in Censorship relates to the network response to it. The current structure of the article was also determined by a consensus in the talk page. But if you feel strongly about it, we can continue discussing it... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. The unusual structure of the article can be attributed to the outside events that dominated this episode, overriding the actual content. Could it be called something other than the "Muhammad subplot", since looking at the TOC you have a section for "Plot", but the "subplot" section is not there. It looks out-of-place. Perhaps if it had a different heading that didn't have the word "plot" in it. Xtzou ( Talk ) 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't think of a good alternative word for "subplot", so I changed "Plot" to "Synopsis" instead. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be called the "Muhammad storyline". Then you would not have to change the basis format of the South Park episode articles. Xtzou ( Talk ) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call. Done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Well done! Congratulations, Xtzou ( Talk ) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Well written
 * B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: Sources are reliable
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!
 * Pass or Fail: Pass!