Talk:Stranger Things season 3/GA1

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Lead seems a little light, doesn't at all describe what happens in the season. It could also benefit from a very brief summary of what Stranger Things even is (in both lead and article).
 * I wonder if "Notable guests" is OR. Might just be best to note Guests, as it doesn't have to include all guests.
 * It notes a possible raise to $250,000; what is that contingent on? Is it "$200,000 or $250,000 if you do well"? Or does it just represent a range of possibilities, with a minimum and a maximum?
 * Putting quotations around commercial feels a little awkward; consider changing this to saying it's an in-universe commercial for the first instance.
 * Wasn't there a video game adaptation of ST3?
 * It feels inaccurate to say that the season received positive reception; it certainly did, but it also received comparable negative reception. Should at least note that it's "generally positive reception" if not mixed to positive.
 * The Reception should be paraphrased more than it is, too much straight-up quotation of the sources.
 * The Forbes link is from a contributor, and is thus not a reliable source.
 * One or more sources lack necessary information, such as the title of an article and one or more instances of the work of an article not being mentioned in the reference(s).
 * Thanks for the review! I should have a chance to fix these tomorrow hopefully. The Doctor Who  (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Update Sorry, have been busier than expected will get to everything by the end of this weekend. Thanks for being patient, again my apologies.  The Doctor Who  (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm no stranger to the balancing act of responsible Wikipedia work, take all the time you need. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * About the raises the source states that "I hear their per-episode fee will go up to more than $200,000 an episodes and possibly around $250,000." so I've fixed that statement in the article. Added a section about the video game adaption. Outside of that everything else should be fixed. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks again - The Doctor Who  (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Passed. Good job with the article. I hope that Stranger Things 4 is as enjoyable for me as 3. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)