Talk:Daredevil season 1/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Response
For 2b, nothing's wrong with whatever that tool is suggesting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I trust the tool, and it's been cited, to me, in the past at numerous stages of Quality improvement review. Please archive those sources to the Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT fields archivedate and archiveurl, and that should fix it. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have gone through the article(s), and I believe that I have covered everything that you brought up above. If I have missed something, or there is anything else you would like me to deal with, just let me know.

As for the stability issues, as far as I am concerned the page is stable now, but there have been at least two incidents in the last 5 months or so involving a user who does not commonly edit here trying to make some changes. The more recent one involved the removal of a note from the episode table that indicated the early premiere of the first two episodes. It was agreed that it was better to just note this in the marketing section, as we have done at some of our other television articles, and to leave the episode table for the original Netflix release, but this conclusion was admittedly not reached in the best way, with edit summaries of reversions used rather than the talk page. Despite that, the issue has been resolved and so should be no problem as far as article stability goes. The other major incident, which was briefly discussed above, concerned which image to use in the infobox, the current one, or a different one released after the season began streaming. Though the discussion was not technically carried through to a proper conclusion, the disagreeing party seems to have left the matter be, and those arguing for the keeping of the current image made note that once the season is released on home media, which usually determines the infobox image, the matter can be revisited. Therefore, I am confident that there is no longer a stability issue, and even if the matter was not resolved properly, it has been decided to revisit it at a more appropriate time.

Hopefully this clears up any issues with the stability of the article. If not, please let me know and I can further clarify anything that needs be.

And thanks for this, we decided to nominate the article quite a while ago and it was feeling like it just might not happen! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer
Will await responses to reevaluation by GA Reviewer, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) All links now check out okay with Checklinks tool -- at -- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Daredevil_%28season_1%29
 * 2) Upon revisiting with https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Daredevil+%28season+1%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- excellent job here, much much better.
 * 3) Suggest moving Accolades to top of Critical response sect, and remove it as its own sect, just a paragraph at start of that sect.
 * 4) Please add in-line citations to image captions to back up factual assertions made in the text of the captions.
 * 5) Much much better rationale at File:Charlie Cox as Daredevil in Marvel's Daredevil.gif - great job here.
 * 6) Lede intro sect looks much better, great job here.
 * 7) Did you at least read through and familiarize yourself with the instructions, as suggested at my suggestion number 3, for you to please just consider as a suggestion ?
 * 8) Article has been stable for last couple days. Article talk page also shows stability last couple days. This is encouraging, combined with stability explanation, above.
 * 9) Much much better, overall. Great job !!!
 * I have added the in-line citations to the image captions as requested. However, I would argue against the merging of the accolades and the critical response sections, as to me the accolades information doesn't really fit under the critical response banner since the critics don't really decide who gets what awards (except for specific ceremonies such as the critics' choice awards).


 * And I have looked over the GA review instructions that you linked to, and am looking forward to giving it a go myself soon. I probably wouldn't have decided to do it you hadn't suggested it, so thanks for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Passed as GA. Thanks very much to for such polite responsiveness to my GA Reviewer recommendations, above. Most appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)