Talk:Stargate Atlantis season 1/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems encountered when checking against quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I had to copy-edit for style, grammar, clarity and consistency of tense. Please pay attention to this in any further nominations you make.  The Guild of copyeditors can help.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #11 reports network error. It looks from the URL to be a blog and thus not an RS.  I have commented it out as in my opinion it is not an essential part of the article and could probably be replaced by another review if you wanted. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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, 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:
 * OK, I am happy to pass this as it stands as a Good article. Congratulations.  Please do bear in mind my comments about prose style above for any future nominations. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this article. And i've gone to the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look at my other GA nominations. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, I am happy to pass this as it stands as a Good article. Congratulations.  Please do bear in mind my comments about prose style above for any future nominations. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this article. And i've gone to the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look at my other GA nominations. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this article. And i've gone to the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look at my other GA nominations. --TIAYN (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)