Talk:Stella Nickell/GA1

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs)

Alright, it looks like this article has sat at WP:GAN long enough! I'm going to be going over this article over the next several days, performing minor fixes and copyedits to it as I go. I'll then get back to you here with whatever needs working on. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I've given it a once-over tonight and corrected a few things I noticed (there's always those little errors you can't see until you've been away from the article for a while...). Eagerly awaiting your thoughts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright! Here's my review.


 * Content
 * First paragraph of "Initial investigation": "Paul Webking had apparently had the luck of selecting two untainted capsules from the household bottle; Susan Snow had been less lucky and picked out tainted ones." This is unsourced and essentially repeats what has been said in the previous paragraph.
 * ✅ I was going for a neat summary of what the sourced content meant about the luck of those who drew from the bottle, but the reader can probably figure that out for themselves. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth paragraph of "Initial investigation": This has confusing time progression.
 * Can you explain a little more what's reading unclearly to you? I'm not seeing it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The confusing time progression that I am referring to is thus: The paragraph starts off appearing to describe the events as they unfold one after another. Then it states that "on June 24", followed immediately by "on June 20", which is itself followed by "on June 27". I had to re-read the material to figure out what had happened when. My recommendation would be to list the events in the order they occurred. However, if this is impossible (i.e. you don't know the exact date of the FDA plant inspection), I would recommend rewriting the first clause of the second sentence into the past perfect tense. This would yield the difference:
 * The first clause of the second sentence now indicates that the events occurred prior to the events of the sentence before. (Note also the grammatical error that needs to be fixed.) Hope this helps! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ahhh, gotcha. Rearranged and fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph of "Initial investigation": Should Algae Destroyer be wikilinked? I don't think that the product will ever be notable enough for its own article.
 * ✅ Yeah, I linked that reflexively when I first wrote the paragraph, and then forgot to take it out when it turned out to be red. Removed now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last paragraph of "Focusing the investigation": "they were unable to build a strong enough case to support an arrest." [Citation needed].
 * ✅ That belonged to the source from earlier in the sentence. No idea why I decided to insert the citation halfway through rather than at the end. Fixed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of "In media": This is completely unreferenced.
 * Generally the publishing information on a book or TV show (with info on title, author, episode, etc) is a source for its own publication, by common sense. Are you asking me to find third-party sources to verify that these things exist (an article that says "in his book on the case, Bitter Almonds, Greg Olsen says...")? Or are you asking me to include the reference information for the book/episodes in ref tags, as well as in the text of paragraph where they already are ("Greg Olsen wrote a book called Bitter Almonds on the case. )?
 * You don't have to source the paragraph if you don't want to. However, I would source it to the book and to the movie shows themselves just to help satisfy WP:V by showing where you got the information. I feel that the last sentence in particular should cite the source for your information&mdash;which may be the movies&mdash;in case a source is later found to be incorrect and that the movie shows did not in fact refer to Stella. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ok, did the best I could here. It's surprisingly difficult to directly source episodes to a show's own website. Apparently networks don't think episode lists are important! I did the best I could with non-direct sources, as far as URLs to verify the existence of the episodes. Not the world's best sources, but I think they're passable as secondary citations (primary being the shows themselves). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ok, did the best I could here. It's surprisingly difficult to directly source episodes to a show's own website. Apparently networks don't think episode lists are important! I did the best I could with non-direct sources, as far as URLs to verify the existence of the episodes. Not the world's best sources, but I think they're passable as secondary citations (primary being the shows themselves). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * I couldn't check the HighBeam references for accuracy (UC doesn't have a college HighBeam account), but spotchecks of the others seem to indicate no close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of sources.
 * HighBeam Research should only be linked once, not once in every reference.
 * Hm. I'm using the recommended citation format for Highbeam sources (HighBeam/Citations), but neither it nor I are married to the repeated linking beyond the fact that the convenient-to-use-template that page uses suggests linking it. If you'd definitely like to see them all delinked, I can do so. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing I have against it is that WP:MOSREF and WP:OVERLINK indicates that sources should be linked only once. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Also revamped the ref style a bit, to make my life easier. Let me know if you spot any new typos or broken refs that I might have borked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Refs are still good. This is actually the format I used in Cirrus cloud. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reference #1: Needs an access date for the web link.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reference #5: I was initially highly concerned about reliability, but I was able to find "All essays and features are vetted by professional staff." on historylink.org's about us page, which alleviates my concerns.
 * Reference #7: Spell out what UPI is.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * References #16, 18, & 20: Use correct title casing for these references even if the source uses all caps.
 * ✅ A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * Is "Extra-Strength Excedrin" a compound name? If not, the first two words should be lowercase.
 * ❌ "Extra-Strength Excedrin" is the product name, and is referred to with capitals in the sources. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Image use
 * No images are used, so no worries here.

Overall, this looks pretty good. Just correct the issues I've listed, then I'll take another look. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good article checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * If you intend to take it to featured status, I'd recommend having someone better than I look over the article since he prose still feels slightly rough in a couple places. However, the current status is definitely good enough for the GA criteria.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Excellent work here.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Very good sourcing work.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * This appears to covers everything of note about the topic without straying off into the weeds. Good work.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * No images, so not applicable.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I could find no free-content images that would benefit the topic. Also not applicable.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks great! Thanks for your work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * I could find no free-content images that would benefit the topic. Also not applicable.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Looks great! Thanks for your work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)