Talk:Cameron Mitchell (Stargate)/GA1

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

Starting Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Article passes quick fail criteria ✅ Starting main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * In the lead and the Role in Stargate SG-1 sections there is a confusing mix of present and past tense. I suggest all should be in past tense to ensure consistency of prose style. In Character arc, the clause then-Captain Mitchell piloted an F-16 and mistakenly bombed a vehicle with innocent refugees rather than the enemy. This reads badly - presumably bombed a vehicle containing innocent refugees. Further down  but fails at assembling - fails to assemble is grammatical. Mitchell was shot down and nearly died of severe injuries, but received the Medal of Honor during his stay at the hospital.  A little clumsy, implies a connection between nearly died and receiving the medal. Having fully recovered at the beginning of season 9, Mitchell opts to join SG-1 - change of tense within sentence. Relationships Teal'c first reacts taken aback to Mitchell's enthusiasm - ungrammatical. SG1 leadership, described Mitchell's early leadership difficulties with "dealing with what are essentially legendary characters - suggest difficulties in dealing with ....  I suggest that you enlist another editor to go through the prose line by line to copy-edit. Article follows WP:MOS satisfactorily. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I chose different tenses because there is a narrative past and a narrative present, and the present starts with his first appearance in the series. E.g. the character is never born in the series; he was born ~30 years before the series started. His arc in the series starts right after his recovery, therefore the switch from past to present right before that paragraph "Having fully recovered at the beginning of season 9, Mitchell opts to join SG-1..." seems correct. I will attempt to make the distinction between flashbacks and narrative present clearer. I'll attempt to fix the other things you noted. – sgeureka t•c 09:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well referenced, links to web sources are live. I am worried that a large number of references are to DVD commentaries or episode dialogue which cannot be checked. Can online sources be found? This could be interpreted as original research. Refs #11, #28, #33, #41 are to a self-published weblog, i.e. no editorial input.  A weblog on a newspaper or magaizine site may be acceptable but not on a weblog only site. I would like to see more effort made in proviiding reliable 3rd party sources, e.g. ref #52 is to another Wikipwedia article, which is not allowed, you should be able to find other sources if these awards are notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Online transcripts are widely available for the series, so episode dialog can be checked easily even without watching the show as the character's primary source. There is no requirement for sources to be online, and I'd argue DVD commentaries are just as hard (or easy) to get/check than the average book source (e.g. amazon.com or video rental/library). The weblog is writer-producer Joseph Mallozzi's weblog, and he is reliable without editorial input. I'll remove the Spacey Awards mention because I don't know if are reliable enough, and because my youtube upload of the segment probably won't count. – sgeureka t•c 09:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is broad in scope and remains focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The artcile adheres to a WP:NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * I find no evidence of edit warring, no contentious recent posts on talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 10 April 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):
 * The images used are tagged and have suitable captions. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Some things to be done:
 * Copy edit prose
 * Improve referencing, I shall place the article on hold Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC) ✅.
 * I am happy to pass this as GA, good article, thanks for addressing my concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and input. – sgeureka t•c 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to pass this as GA, good article, thanks for addressing my concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and input. – sgeureka t•c 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)