Talk:Pilot (Community)/GA2

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

Reviewer: James26 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Well-written overall. I only made one minor change in the lead. However, I think that the caption for the cast photo should use actor surnames, instead of character names.
 * Done
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It's well-sourced in general. The plot summary is covered by WP:MOSTV, and I think this extends to the descriptions in "Cast and characters." In another minor change, I had to move one citation in "Production," in order to provide a more direct source for something (the thing about saving a real-life relationship). However, the TV Guide source in "Reception" is no longer available. I'd like to see whether the comment will be removed or replaced.
 * I've come across this problem before; it seems all of this writer's articles from a certain period have gone missing. Fortunately it was relatively easy to find another critic who said practically the same.
 * 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:
 * The "Reception" section mentions that "others were less impressed," but cites only one negative/mixed review. Is this all that could be found?
 * No, but seeing how it received a Metascore of 69, and in the interest of neutrality and due weight, isn't a good/bad review ratio of 2/1 fair? If you want I could perhaps add one or two more good ones and one more poor one?
 * Reconsidered my stance.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for your review, let me know what you think. Lampman (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. -- James26 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I actually added a couple of more reviews; it was a bit thin. It's now three good ones and two less so; 60/40 seems fair. Lampman (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, let me know what you think. Lampman (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Passed. -- James26 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I actually added a couple of more reviews; it was a bit thin. It's now three good ones and two less so; 60/40 seems fair. Lampman (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I actually added a couple of more reviews; it was a bit thin. It's now three good ones and two less so; 60/40 seems fair. Lampman (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)