Talk:Manchester (The West Wing)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Are TV.com and Television Without Pity reliable sources?

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! The question of sources is a good one, and something I have struggled a bit with. Going by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples I'd say that TWoP is reasonably reliable, while TV.com (and also IMDb) are borderline, due to a high amount of user contributed content. The problem is that it's almost impossible to find alternative sources for much of this information, as I've explained in the review of another episode. I've used the more reliable sources whenever they could be found, and these sources mostly in cases where they should be expected to get it right, such as casting and awards. Lampman (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked out Television Without Pity and it seems fine. But, I've been informed that TV.com is not a reliable source. Couldn't just you combine Refs. 3 and 9 for the Reel Awards? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed TV.com. Lampman (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Lampman for being patient in this review, but it needs to be clear that I was just doing my job of making sure that the article met GA standards. With that being said, congratulations, you know have a GA in your midst. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to this article, which was reverted for reason: "please don't unilaterally make drastic changes to articles that have gone through GA review" which I don't think is much of a reason at all. I have added [citation needed] tags to two assertions. If these assertions are not supported in a reasonable amount of time, I'll be redeleting the section. I may also provide sources that suggest the article is in fact currently lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.254.128 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]