Talk:Walter Skinner/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) 14:43, 13 September 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 problems with quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Character arc:  It is unclear whether he is entirely independent in his actions or controlled by people such as the Cigarette Smoking Man in early episodes. In early episodes, the frequent presence of the Cigarette Smoking Man in Skinner's office suggested that Skinner was at least partially under his power. some duplication here, suggest combining into one sentence. I made a few minor copy-edits. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * There is a mixture of past and present tense in the lead, I suggest changing to past tense. The lead does not fully summaris ethe article, especially the conceptual history and reception sections.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * In the first nine references the wikification of the episode title makes these references to Wikipedia itself. This could probably be solved by removing the wikilinks.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Robin Mayhall's website is in itself not a RS. If the statements are introduced with something like in an interview with X-Files fan site host Robin Mayhall, Pileggi said.... I think that would be clearer.
 * c (OR):
 * 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:
 * Just a few points above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, all sorted now, I am happy to list this as a Good Article, congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. --TIAYN (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few points above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, all sorted now, I am happy to list this as a Good Article, congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. --TIAYN (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a few points above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, all sorted now, I am happy to list this as a Good Article, congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. --TIAYN (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. --TIAYN (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)