Talk:Dead Celebrities/GA1

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

Reviewer: JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues I'd like to see fixed before I pass this article:
 * 1) The third paragraph of the lead section uses the words 'some proponents'. I would classify this as a weasel word and would recommend that you avoid it.
 * 2) *Changed that (and the later reference) to "critics". Is that better? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. Weasel word states that 'critics' is a weasel word :( It says to specify exactly which critics say that particular thing (i.e. 'Critics claim' would change to 'Jane Doe of the Iqaluit Herald commented...'. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just removed the part with the weasel word altogether. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The plot isn't referenced. Not sure if this is an issue.
 * 2) *According to WP:TVMOS, it doesn't have to be. It says, "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question."
 * Great. I'll know for next time. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The 'production' section is a little short. In other articles (such as Pee (South Park)) the production section is a lot longer.
 * 2) *Yeah, unfortunately, I find sometimes there is lots of production info available for a television episode and sometimes there is very little. Conversely, this article had lots of info on the theme, whereas others have little of that. I combined the "Production" and "Theme" sections into one section, which GAN reviews have sometimes suggested in the past to fix this. Does that address it? —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The link for TV-MA L leads to two different locations (first in the lead and secondly in the production section). I think these should be made consistent.
 * 2) *My mistake. Fixed.
 * OK. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The word 'said' appears nine times in the Reception section. It would add 'spice' to the article to vary these a little ('commented', etc.).
 * Ok, done. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  15:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much improved. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to pass this article as soon as these issues are fixed. Thanks, JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Passed by JulieSpaulding (talk) on 16:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: