Talk:Lord of the Pi's/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

 * 1) Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
 * 2) NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
 * 3) Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. Thank you. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the extensive review! I believe I have responded to all comments now. The quotes are now below 30%. I expanded the lead and archived more of the links this time (I know these websites so I know which links are likely to disappear sometime). I also changed the picture of Hearst. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer
A few minor quibbles holding this one up, then it should be fine. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Lord_of_the_Pi%2527s - shows all links check out okay, good job !
 * 2) Copyvio Detector tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Lord+of+the+Pi%27s&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - result = "Violation Unlikely 29.1% confidence" = GREAT JOB HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, EXCELLENT WORK !!!
 * 3) Thanks for changing Synopsis to Plot synopsis, looks better that way.
 * 4) Reception sect looks much better, thank you.
 * 5) Per WP:LEADCITE, you can remove those citations from the lede intro sect, IFF same factual assertions appear later in article body text.
 * 6) Thank you for that image change to the cropped image, it looks much better. Might I suggest changing the infobox image for that subject, in the article about the subject, to that image, as well? It might look more flattering than the current portrayal in her infobox, what do you think?
 * 7) "The episode received a polarized reaction from television critics." -- More needed in the lede intro sect on this info. What was the polarized reaction? Why? From which critics and/or which publications? -- upon revisiting, this looks MUCH better, thank you!
 * The two things you mentioned should be fixed now. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 04:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)