Talk:Blood Ties (Homicide: Life on the Street)/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Passes when checked against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The lead contains a mixture of tenses, past and present. It would be preferable to put all in the past.  I agree with your descision to keep the first two senstences in present tense.  all reads well now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * The article is adequately referenced. I assume good faith for them as they are all print sources.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All reliable
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would like the tense of the lead to be made consistent, otherwise no problems. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for your hard work, I can confirm that this is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would like the tense of the lead to be made consistent, otherwise no problems. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for your hard work, I can confirm that this is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would like the tense of the lead to be made consistent, otherwise no problems. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for your hard work, I can confirm that this is worthy of Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)