Talk:Grumpy Old Man/GA1

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

Reviewer: Koopatrev (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article soon (before June 4, 2012).Koopatrev (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing now. Koopatrev (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Prose and Images

 * Prose is fine, well written
 * Images are of good quality and clear, they are tagged with copyright statuses and has a suitable caption on

Infobox
✅ by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The writers should be listed in two lines with

Lead

 * "The episode originally aired on Fox in the United States on December 11, 2011." "United States" could be linked. ✅ Per Wiki Manual of Style, this isn't necessary.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot

 * "Carter is reluctant at first (since he doesn't want to leave out a six-billion dollar company), but eventually ..." Change "doesn't" to "does not". ✅ by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Link the first "Joe" you can see to "Joe Swanson" ✅ by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references

 * A source is needed for the first statement in that paragraph.
 * See this section for problems with sources. ✅ (change done by TBrandley (talk)) Koopatrev (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Production and development
Nothing wrong so far. ✅

Reception

 * A section is needed for reviews from critics.

Final review (template)

 * Final review (sorry I'm over an hour late but that's ok) Koopatrev (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

1. It is well written.
 * Prose quality:
 * Follows MOS:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable;.:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:
 * The "cultural references" section is still lacking some sources for some statements. In source 3 you don't really see anything that says anything about the cultural references of this episode.

3. It is broad in coverage:
 * Major aspects:

The section for reviews from critics in the "reception" section is still missing. However there is still a part for U.S. viewers and ratings.


 * Focused:

4. It is written in a neutral point of view.:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars etc:

6. Includes images, where appropriate.:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: Sorry this probably has to fail, some parts are still lacking information.