Talk:The Daedalus Variations/GA1

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

Starting article review
I'm just starting the GA review process; my first impressions are good, but I have to read the article and GA criteria before passing. Also this is my first review, so please bear with me here and feel free to correct any mistakes I make VJ (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Detailed discussion
On closer inspection I find two things wrong with this article, and both can be cleaned up very quickly.

1)I think that there's overlinking in the lead see WP:OVERLINK. In particular, do "British", "television series" and "science fiction " need to be linked? (Fails WP:WIAGA criterion 1)
 * Seems like you already sorted it out.

2)Secondly and far more critically the plot section contains no citations; I don't think that it's anything quick trip to gateworld etc. can't fix though. Citations for Stargate aren't hard to find. (Fails WP:WIAGA criterion 2)
 * Added source (GateWorld will do, since mgm and scifi.com don't tell us the whole guide unlike BSG, and the Stargate Wiki (wikia and solutions) are unnofficial.

In my opinion it passes criterion 3 - 6 of the Good article criteria. So I'm going to assess as on hold. I'll clean up the overlinking myself and let's see if we can get some citations. VJ (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Edited -VJ (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to say that this must be the fastest reaction time to have an article reviewed for GA status since I nominated it. Secondly, thanks for the review, I think I may have addressed the concerns. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Review
I'm going to pass this as a good article; my reasoning (broken down by GA criteria) follows.

1)
 * a) I cannot find any spelling, grammar mistakes, The syntax is clear, readable and flows well.
 * b)I can't find any breach of WP:MOS, even after checking WP:MOSFICT particularly closely

2)
 * a)This article has enough citations and all content is verifiable. However whilst I believe that it passes as a Good article, there is room for improvement here, particularly if FA status is going to be an aim
 * b)This article not contentious in any way, indeed I don't see how this topic could be made contentious.
 * c)TV series articles often contain original research. This one doesn't, all it's claims are backed up by a secondary source.

3)
 * a &b)This article is tightly focused by it's very nature, the editors have resisted any temptation to explore the stargate universe more widely than necessary solely in order to give the article length. Having said that extending the article should be an aim in order to get FA status, but I'm note sure it will be possible to add much more without going into pointless detail.

4)
 * Straight pass, it would be hard to wright this article in a bias manner if you tried

5)
 * The revision history proves this article to be stable, I cannot find an edit war anywhere, this is also further proof of it's uncontroversial nature.

6)
 * a &b)Fair use exception clear for image and good concise caption

VJ (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)