Talk:Cold Blood (Doctor Who)/GA1

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

Reviewer: --Gen. Quon (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "Writer Chris Chibnall was contacted by executive producers Steven Moffat and Piers Wenger about writing a two-part Doctor Who episode about Silurians and a drill." Too many abouts for my taste
 * Fixed. Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Critical reception doesn't seem to be that mixed. I'd go more with moderately positive, as Fuller is the only one who had anything that negative to say.
 * I changed it to "positive to mixed". Actually, Fuller is the moore negative review; Wales was mixed, and Martin was so-so (he later said it was disappointing. Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Just want to check, what makes "Doctor Who News Page" a reliable source?
 * It's been accepted it most GAs and the few FA Doctor Who episode pages and has been cited by other sources such as io9 and SFX. I only use it when necessary, though. It's boarderline. This is the only AI figure reported in a more reliable source for this series, and it lists the Doctor Who News Page as its source!  Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been accepted it most GAs and the few FA Doctor Who episode pages and has been cited by other sources such as io9 and SFX. I only use it when necessary, though. It's boarderline. This is the only AI figure reported in a more reliable source for this series, and it lists the Doctor Who News Page as its source!  Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * 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):
 * Any pictures for the production section? Doesn't really matter, but I like pictures. ;)
 * I've looked, but there's nothing for Chibnall and the Plantasia picture doesn't show the plants which is the whole point...I suppose I could use a picture of Darvill, but that would just repeat the caption used in the infobox. Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (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):
 * Any pictures for the production section? Doesn't really matter, but I like pictures. ;)
 * I've looked, but there's nothing for Chibnall and the Plantasia picture doesn't show the plants which is the whole point...I suppose I could use a picture of Darvill, but that would just repeat the caption used in the infobox. Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This is a really well-written article. Just a couple minor issues, but nothing bad. Putting on hold for 7 days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! See comments above. Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright! Looks good, I pass! Cheers!--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! See comments above. Glimmer721  talk  23:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright! Looks good, I pass! Cheers!--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)