Talk:Grey's Anatomy season 1/GA1

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

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be reviewing.  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 13:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to read through the article and list any existent issues below. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 14:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues

 * In the first paragraph in the lead, in this sentence "The season initially served as a mid-season replacement for the legal drama Boston Legal, airing in the Sunday night timeslot at 10.00, after Desperate Housewives.", instead of '10.00', it should say '10:00'. Note the colon.
 * ✅ Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Every sentence in crew should be referenced.
 * The information in the "Crew" subsection is displayed on the screen at beginning or the end of an episode. Isn't that a trustworthy source? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well if you really can't find one then that will work. Just cite a footnote to the bottom explaining that. If you don't know how then let me know and I'll do it.  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss. Please, give me a hand. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added the footnote citation for you. If you'd like to see it, press here.
 * Thank you for your help. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Last sentence of 'Ratings', where it says "and was ranked the ninth is viewership", it should say "and was ranked the ninth in viewership".
 * ✅ Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Accolades has no references. Every sentence in accolades should be referenced.
 * ✅ Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Expand critical response. Research everything until you find more critical reviews.
 * There is not enough information for a subsection at "Critical response", so I suggest we merge "Critical response" with "Accolades". Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you searched through the archives of Google? Dissected many articles around the internet? You can't just look at one website such as Metacritic or the Grey's Anatomy page's Critical reception section. You have to search everywhere. It can take a while. If you truly have done that, and there are no more reviews on the internet, then merge the sections.  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I have. I have been in front of my laptop for hours. I will keep searching until I find something worthwhile. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have expanded the "Critical response" subsection. I have finally found some reviews. I hope it's enoguh. However, I still think we should merge "Critical response" and "Accolades". What do you think? Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No that's plenty of information. Good job.  TRLIJC19   (  talk  ) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * References 16-19 (The ones you added to Accolades) don't even show the link. They all need to be fully expanded.
 * ✅ Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The final sentence of Accolades is not referenced.
 * ✅ Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am putting the review on hold so the nominator can assess the problems. Please fix these issues within seven (7) days and then I'll continue on with the review. If these issues are not fixed within the limit, then the nomination will unfortunately have to be failed. To make it easier for me, I would prefer that after you fix each issue, you put the "done" template (✅) ( ✅ ) after it or the "not done" (❌) template but explaining why you didn't make the change. Looking forward to finishing the review. TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 14:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed all the issues you noted. Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Review

 * 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):
 * 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:

Since all outstanding issues have been addressed, the article now meets the good article criteria and I'm happy to sign it off. Great job to the nominator for all your hard work on the review and article. Happy editing! TRLIJC19  (  talk  ) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing and promoting this article! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)