Talk:Peter-assment/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 16:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   All grand. Gave a minor copy-edit but that's it sorted in terms of prose.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Not a problem with the citations.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Given that you include some criticism of a joke in the episode, the actual scene should be mentioned in the plot summary or recapped along with the criticism. As is, it's pretty out of context.

   I'm not sure what you are referring to. If you are referring to the Schiavo joke, it is mentioned in the first sentence of plot. Please explain. Gage (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

   Oh, that's it? I sort of assumed the joke would be more offensive than that. Ah well, guess we're complete then. GRAPPLE X 10:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality seems okay to me.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   History is stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The image of Fisher is commons, no problem there. The rationale for the screenshot seems a bit cursory and boilerplate, though. Try to specify why it's relevant to the episode in question, showing the episode's two main roles in a key plot point.

   Removed. Gage (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just going to hold this one for now, shouldn't take long at all to fix the 3A and 6A issues there. GRAPPLE X 16:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerns addressed, article's good to go. Well done! GRAPPLE X 10:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)