Talk:The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I applaud the fact that the quotes in the "Critical response" section are delineated with quotation marks but I would like to see how this content appears in box-quotes or other forms. There are a few quotes that run several sentences, I think it might be clearer if that content was set-off with indents or boxes etc. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think your changes make the quotes much more clear. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
I especially like the layout of the referencing-cites in this article. Easy to follow and find, nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
None found, going to do some more deep-reading to see if there's anything I missed. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool. It did find some commonality with an avclub article but that is because both articles use quoted material from the same people. Not an issue. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It's about a specific episode of a TV show and does the job. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
See above. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No content disputes/edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
No images, but they aren't a GA requirement. I understand that with this subject that it can be difficult to find images that are not problematic. I would suggest searching Commons to see if maybe there is a Marvel/ABC/Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. logo and perhaps a set-photo or photo of "Agent Coulson" or a group photo of all the agents that could be added. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no images. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I am going to do some readthroughs to see if there are any grammar/punctuation/referencing issues that I might have missed. This might take me a couple days. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shearonink, I have found an image on Commons that I think is appropriate for the article, and I have given the reception section a bit of a clean up. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]