Talk:Killing Mr. Griffin/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I see a few minor issues that need to be fixed, but otherwise a nice article.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Plot - when Griffin gives the three students an F, is he failing them for that assignment only or for the course as a whole? One makes their revenge more petty than the other. "David and Mark jump Mr. Griffin" - Can this be re-written to avoid the slang jump? I know it means assault, but not all readers will. (I don't think "assault" is the best option here either. A specific description of the attack would be preferred.). "...until the basketball game that day is over." The high school basketball game I'm guessing? Are the students players? Did they attend it? The text should specify if he was left alone. In the next paragraph, did Susan and David check on him mid-game? If the game itself isn't important, maybe just say they chose to leave him alone for the afternoon/evening? "give it a paint job" seems like slang. Why not "repaint it"? This part with the grandmother needs more introduction. I'm guessing Dave lives with her, but that's not immediately clear. Is she his paternal grandmother? It seems relevant to her reaction, since she believes the ring belonged to Dave's father. "She is later killed," - this seems like a significant plot point. "Murdered" seems like a better choice if it was clear to observers within the text. How did Mark learn she took the ring? When Susan's curtains on fire, why is she "miraculously saved" instead of just "saved"? Have the other students left when Mrs Griffin arrives?
 * How does it look now? Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Characters - Did Mr Griffin give Susan a B (or lower)? If so, that should be noted. If not, her straight-A status should be present tense. Was the identity of Dave's father a significant fan theory? If so, it should be discussed further. If not, the denial, although sourced, isn't really noteworthy.
 * I added that Susan is earning B's in the class. In regards to your second point, I said that the identity of Dave's father was a question often asked of her. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Background - Was the 2010 audiobook done with the updated text or the original?
 * The updated text, I added this to the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Per the MOS, the "Theme" and "Television film" sections should be renamed to "Major themes" and "Adaptation". Why is a "See also" section needed for Teaching Mrs. Tingle? Please provide an explanation for it per Manual of Style/Layout or remove it.
 * Headings changed, and added an explanation to see also section. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Source 8 is the only one where the title is in all caps. Is there a reason to shout?
 * Issue fixed by Librarygurl. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no issues
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Characters "exhibits many of the signs of psychopathy" - is this from the book itself? If not, it needs a source.
 * I added a source. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Per earwig, strongest matches are attributed quotes. No issues.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no issues
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no issues
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * The reception section is nicely balanced.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no edit war. One bit of vandalism a month ago, reverted within 20 minutes.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * rationale provided
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Image is relevant and captioned, but it needs WP:ALTTEXT
 * Alttext added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)