Talk:The Quatermass Memoirs/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) 21:02, 20 July 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 obvious problems found when checking against the quick fail criteria - on to the substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * meets criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * I reorganised the References section to conform with WP:MoS and customary practice. I would like to see a slight expansion in the lead, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies, is what WP:Lead section says. So we need to have a little about the production and reception. Probably two short paragraphs in total. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * All web links check out. I assume good faith for other sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * All cited sources are RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * None discernible. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * 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:
 * So just a little more work on the lead please, on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * So just a little more work on the lead please, on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * So just a little more work on the lead please, on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, excellent work. I am happy to pass this article as being worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)