Talk:Marvel's Most Wanted/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Premise
 * Not every reader will know what SHIELD is. I think a short descriptor, such as "..no help from S.H.I.E.L.D., the spy agency that previously employed them, they form..." in needed.
 * Added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cast and characters
 * Who are being quoted in this section? The character descriptions should be attributed or paraphrased.
 * Quotes attributed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Palicki knew of the character due to her status as the Avenger Mockingbird in the comics" This isn't very clear. Was Palicki a comic reader? Is it trying to say that Palicki was aware of the character prior to taking on the role?
 * Clarified. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Production
 * "Bell compared Most Wanted to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off Angel, and said that series would be more intimate than Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D." Suggest revising to "...Angel, saying the series would be...'
 * Changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No pick-up and future
 * no concern
 * Lead
 * no concern
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * 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 concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * In Premise, "they form an uneasy alliance with rogue adventurer Dominic Fortune" is taken verbatim from source #4, which isn't cited in that section. This should be reworded or properly attributed. Earwig's other high ranked results are from extended quotes.
 * What you quoted is a reword of the information from source #1, which stated: "Bobbi and Hunter form an uneasy alliance with Dominic Fortune, a rogue adventurer with a wealth of resources and even more adversaries...". Do you still wish source #4 be added, given this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about "enter into an uneasy partnership"? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I've changed it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * An editor has tried to insert some OR twice, but was reverted quickly. It has not been discussed on the talk page.
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass pending minor notes made above. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I've responded to your minor notes above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All concerns have been addressed. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)