Talk:Say Hello to My Little Friend (Awake)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gen. Quon (talk · contribs) 01:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I don't sound too mean. I just want GAs to be awesome! On a positive note, I find your prose nice. :) This is on hold for seven days to fix the issues.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, you have three non-free screenshots, which is too many. One is, at most, good, but you need to have a reasonable use for why you have them. Arguing that they are OK because of "An overview" is not acceptable, and they will be deleted. This page has been tagged with copyright note, so get rid of the ones you don't need. Don't mean to sound harsh.
 * Lede: References aren't needed in the lede, I'd move them to the main body of the article.
 * Plot: You don't need to cite every single sentence of the plot. Just one, stuck at the end of the last paragraph will do nicely
 * Plot: Link actor names in the summary
 * Production: Or, rather a lack of one. Considering that this is a rather short article to begin with, a production section is a must. You mention that the episode was written by "by series creator Kyle Killen and staff writer Leonard Chang, and directed by series guest actress Laura Innes." That's a start; can you expand on this? Filming locations? Costs? Guest stars? Really, this area is critical to passing a GA, because it proves that the article is broad in its coverage
 * Critical Reception: "The episode was mainly met with praise and had a good reception among critics" Kinda redundant. Maybe try "The episode was met with praise from most critics"
 * Critical Reception: This section needs to be expanded. this article, which just passed GA, is a good one to look at. Granted, this article has less sources, but its generally a good idea to give a webstie/reviewer's rating and then explain their rationale. Just saying "XXXXXX gave the episode a XX out 5" and moving on isn't very helpful
 * References: Ref 4 doesn't have an access or publishers date
 * References: Ref 5-10 need publishers dates
 * This article still has a bit of work to go. The Lede is short in places (like the summary for production; I would merge with either the preceding or following sentence), the final line of the production section is unscourced, and the entire section remains rather stubby (Only four sentences), and finally, the Response section, again, is not fleshed out to where it needs to be. I'm going to give this one more day.---Gen. Quon (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright: good job! I tweaked the finale article and added and removed a few things, but I think it is as good as its going to get. I will promote this now. Good job!--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)