Talk:The Sue Sylvester Shuffle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Glimmer721  talk  21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I will be reviewing this article. Please note that this is my first GA review, and I think I've only seen one Glee episode. I may ask for a second opinion or consult a mentor.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Pretty good article; just a few small things!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Good, just a few suggestions (you may comment to them if you disagree):
 * I would link "extras" (as in "over 500 extras") to extra (actor). (This is done in the Production section, but not the lead).
 * To avoide confusion in the lead, I would change the sentence in the third paragraph to "The episode received a mixed response..." because it is similar to the sentence in the 2nd paragraph about the performances.
 * In the first paragraph of the plot section, you may wish to mention that Sue Sylvester is the coach of the cheerleading squad. I'm also a bit confused as to why she would want to fire a cheerleader to make her love football more.
 * Production section: the filming of "Thriller" was delayed because of the flu, but was this before or after the tonsillitis outbreak?
 * Give Couric's first name to make it clearer.
 * Has Strado appeared in any episode after, like dos Santos hinted?
 * Critical response section: quote VanDerWerff's "boring"
 * As this is an American TV show, use the American English variant "summarize" instead of "summarise" in the Ken Tucker's EW review (this also being printed in America).
 * "also mocked Lohan's daughter Lindsay." Comma after "daughter".
 * "Canning called Couric's cameo..." Start this sentence with "However" or another transition to make it more understandable.
 * Performances section: use a see also template to link List of songs in Glee (season 2) as related.


 * Corrected all the minor mistakes. It should be good now. :) - DAP388 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll be passing this. Glimmer721  talk  00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Great sourcing.
 * 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.:
 * Seems there are no edit wars from recent history.
 * 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):
 * I am no expert on this, but they seem okay. Unlike te templates for book covers, etc., there is no "purpose" field to explain a fair-use rationale. They seem relevent in the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll hold until the wording issues are resolved, but it seems to be GA quality. Glimmer721  talk  21:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'll hold until the wording issues are resolved, but it seems to be GA quality. Glimmer721  talk  21:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)