Talk:Save the Last One/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Matthew R Dunn (talk · contribs) 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. -- Matthew RD 02:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Well written: See notes below.
Sources: Reliable and verifiable, ✓ Pass.
Broadness in coverage: Covers the topic nicely ✓ Pass.
Neutral: Content represents article fairly, no bias, ✓ Pass.
Stable: No serious edit conflicts, ✓ Pass.
Images: One non-free image, appropriately tagged, other free image checks out too, ✓ Pass.

Comments[edit]

In the lead section point out that Sophia is missing.

Done

You could mention the critical impact of Shane shooting Otis in the lead section, seems like a rather big topic for the episode.

I think a lot of that is mentioned in the last paragraph already.

I just noticed the FA nomination for "What Lies Ahead", where the plot section was plagarised. Well unfortunately this episode's plot is the same as [www.thewalkingdeadepisode.com/the-walking-dead-2-episode-3-save-the-last-one-review/ this website]. You are not at fault DAP, but unfortunately IPs don't tend to realise how serious COPYVIO is.

Done

July first -> July 1

Done

Unlink Jon Bernthal in production section, per WP:REPEATLINK.

Done

Howabout change "Critical reception" section to just "reception" section, as it does mention the ratings.

Done

"Similarly, the episode became the second highest-rated program of the week dated October 30" You should mention the second highest-rated cable program, main network television tend to get more than one show that was seen by more than six million viewers (NCIS, Hawaii Five-0 and Grey's Anatomy for example)

Done

The review will be on hold until the issues are resolved. -- Matthew RD 16:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you would like me to make further adjustments to the Shane/Otis reaction, then it should be good to go. :) —DAP388 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks good from where I'm standing (or sitting). Sorry it took me a while to respond back; I didn't put this page on my watchlist, and I was doing other Wiki things. Anyway I am happy to pass this, your first good article in the new year! -- Matthew RD 01:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.