Talk:He That Believeth in Me/GA1

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

I've never reviewed a TV episode before but I've checked out a long line of other episode GA articles and the MOS and all so let's get to it.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 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):
 * There is one whole section unsourced - "Plot", it's usually got at least 1 citation in what I've seen.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Looks in order to me
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * I see activity connected with GA preparations and that's it
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:

It's one tiny thing and then I'll approve it, good work. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I'm just confused about the "tiny" thing that needs to be done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you want me to find a source for the plot. I'll see this page soon, as I am going to college today and may not be back until tonight. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for confusion, you got it right, a source for the plot section would really be good. No rush the traditional hold period is up to a week so don't worry. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, it's just that I thought plots don't need citations. However, I think I know where to find a reliable source. I'll have it done within the next few minutes (depending on how fast the internet at home is going). -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Completed. I trust this will do :) -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I just saw a few GAs have a source on that section, figured it was a good idea. I'm giving it the GA status now. Well done, really excellent job.MPJ-DK (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)