Talk:Stargate SG-1 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) 00:00, 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 prblems found checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Substantive review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I had to copy-edit throughout for grammar, consistency of tense and clarity. Please check that I have not altered statements in a negative or inaccurate manner. The Lead should summarize the whole article, there is no mention of critical reception. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Good job on the lead, so no problems their. I've added reception info to the lead now. --TIAYN (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #3 ; Ref #14 confirms the MPAA R rating but not the other ratings in the statement. I am happy to accept Gateworld as a source, ref #13  but it would be best attributed as in creator Brad Wright told fan site GateWorld .... ; refs #21, #22, #23 are wiki-linkd to non-existing articles - it would be better to de-link the episode names so as not to cause confusion in those seeking out the references. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ✅
 * Fixed, --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 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:
 * Just a few matters cited above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks for your had work. I am happy to pass this as a good article.  Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few matters cited above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks for your had work. I am happy to pass this as a good article.  Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)