Talk:Public Relations (Mad Men)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I shall be conducting the review. -- Matthew RD 17:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

 * 1) Well written: See below
 * 2) Sources: See below
 * 3) Broadness in coverage: ✅
 * 4) Netural: ✅
 * 5) Stable: ✅
 * 6) Images: Check notes below.

Comments

 * File:Mad.Men.Public.Relations.jpg, though appropritely tagged, is too big, please upload a small version.
 * There seemed to be no smaller variant of the image, so I just replaced it completely.
 * The plot in general needs a rewrite, there seems to be some sentences that add too much detail. Some other parts feel a little confusing (coming from a user who has not seen the show)
 * "The Jantzen representatives find the ad offensive, and are not impressed at all." I think it's better to say they are either not impressed or find the ad offensive.
 * Might want to explain the Crista Flanagan is a recurring actress.
 * "Peggy and a coworker engage in a humorous conversation, in which they subsequently refer to "John & Marsha" by Stan Freberg." Does that mean they were referring to themselves as John and Marsha?
 * Yes. Should it be reworded?
 * Keep an eye out on the consistency of the references. Some of them don't have publishers. Also, I noticed there are four references from TV by the Numbers, but on two of them they went by tvbythenumbers.com.
 * You didn't add an author for the CBS News source (the Huffington Post and Fox News sources didn't add author's name, the Daily Mail just said "MAIL ONLINE REPORTER" but the CBS News source did (it's Devon Thomas)).
 * Huh? It was already there when I was editing.
 * Itzkoff, Compiled By Dave for Ref #8? You can get rid of the "compiled by"
 * Huh? It was already there when I was editing.
 * Itzkoff, Compiled By Dave for Ref #8? You can get rid of the "compiled by"

I'll place the article on hold for seven days. -- Matthew RD 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for amending the issues. That's a pass. Well done. -- Matthew RD 14:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)