Talk:Mind of a Man/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 16:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 16:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Put some stuff from the Production and Reception sections in the lead.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "The panel is allowed to offer their…" it should probably be "while" or "and" rather than "then".
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The last question of Round 2…" remove second and
 * Tweaked and found it better to remove the first, imo. Better? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a file of Ted Lange in this section would be nice?
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For appearances, put a footnote at the end of this section before the "Bonus Round"
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the Hank Stuever review positive or negative? That single comment could go either way, so add more.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How do we know that these were considered average ratings?
 * I follow GSN and know that average primetime ratings are between 350,000 and 500,000 viewers. The sources, I'd argue, are the ratings for other shows. Similar to the plot section of an article on a TV episode, I'm not sure an IC is really a viable option here, given it's unlikely a news article will say something like, "GSN's average ratings are..." --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For an archived url, is "at the Wayback Machine" the correct way to put it in an external link?
 * That's how I've done it for other GSN GAs. It provides a link to the old site while noting that the link is no longer "live." --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So ya know, not a lot. :) Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, again, I'm extremely busy at the moment, but I'll take a look as soon as I can. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think everything has either an explanation or a done tag. Let me know if there is anything else. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with everything now. Pass. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: