Talk:The Million Second Quiz/GA1

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll snag this one. BenLinus 1214 talk 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Comments:


 * You may disagree on this, but I don't really like your use of "panned by viewers" to mean poor ratings. I would rather that you just say what you mean rather than that confusing phrase. With that in mind, restructure the third paragraph of the lead to reflect the structure of ratings then reviews.
 * Give the "gameplay" section a copyedit for tone. You've done a pretty good job explaining the show's complicated structure, but there are parts that could be more formal.
 * About.com…hm. I might be able to accept this, but could you please provide me with an explanation of why you thought this was a reliable source?
 * Even though all the material is covered, some of the ends of your paragraphs appear to be unsourced, which is a bit disconcerting to me—a quick ref name or two will fix that up.
 * To me, these reviews are far from "mixed"—they are pretty unambiguously negative. Especially because you use the phrase "panned" in the lead, this needs to be changed.

So basically, there's one source you need to discuss with me and you have to give one section a copyedit. BenLinus 1214 talk 02:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm busy tomorrow, but I'll try to take a look over the weekend. Regarding About.com, it's used it as a source in many other GAs and its information given has almost always been factually consistent and correct with that of other reliable sources. I've never found any explicitly and/or intentionally incorrect information on the website, and thus would consider it reliable. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I copyedited the gameplay paragraph and tweaked some other things, and added some episode refs. Hopefully it's ✅? Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job. Pass. BenLinus  1214 talk 01:25, 4 July 2015 (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, no copyvios, 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):
 * 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: