Talk:Chuck Versus the Last Details/GA1

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

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude ( Talk to the hand! ) 18:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There are only a few minor problems, after fixed, article should make GA no problem.


 * 4.099 million viewers, can we round this to 4.1 please, it helps reading (only for the lead, below readers want focus on accuracy).
 * The link to "best man" in the plot, is overkill, should be removed.
 * Can you rephrase the first sentence of the Production section since those exact words have already been used in the lead.
 * Could you subsection the Music and Cultural references under Production, it would look cleaner like that.
 * Again, first sentence of Reception is exactly the same as the lead, it's repetitious and needs to be changed.
 * Is there no less positive review to be found? It seems slightly biased, if there isn't don't sweat it, but if there is one to be found it should be added.
 * I've added the only somewhat negative review I can find from a semi-reliable source, where the reviewer says that the show's "anything that can go wrong will go wrong" pace is "killing [her, the reviewer,] by inches".
 * The References list should be split in 2.
 * ✅. Tell me if there's anything else. --Boycool (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there no less positive review to be found? It seems slightly biased, if there isn't don't sweat it, but if there is one to be found it should be added.
 * I've added the only somewhat negative review I can find from a semi-reliable source, where the reviewer says that the show's "anything that can go wrong will go wrong" pace is "killing [her, the reviewer,] by inches".
 * The References list should be split in 2.
 * ✅. Tell me if there's anything else. --Boycool (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tell me if there's anything else. --Boycool (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just needs a few changes here and there, everything is fine in this area.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): (citations to reliable sources):  (OR):
 * Perfic'
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Needs a review that focuses more on the negative aspects of the episode, if none are to be found, this will be changed to a pass.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Perfic'.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Comments above.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Fantastic stuff! That Ole Cheesy Dude ( Talk to the hand! ) 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! --Boycool (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)