Talk:The Son Also Draws/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Man, I haven't watched this season in years. I'm going to have to dig out the dvds post haste.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Few fiddly bits to see to. Nothing huge.
" including those centered around Happy Days..." -> "including references to Happy Days..."
"in contrast to the remaining episodes" -> unless this specifically means the episodes aired after this one, I would change it to "the other episodes".
Your plot section should probably explain who each family member is briefly. For instance, open with "Chris, the family's teenage son, hates...". These articles are likely to be read out of context at some point so a bit of exposition in each one helps explain things to non-viewers.
"Production" has a lot of "this episode", maybe change some to "the episode" or "The Son Also Draws" just for variance.
Retitle "DVD release" as "Home media", as there'll eventually be blu-ray and whatnot.
One of your refs (6) is the only one cited to the book you've got listed. You could just include the book there as a single citation if you want. If you'd rather keep it as it is, you'll still need to change the "pp. 32" bit - "pp." specifies pages, so it should be "p.32" instead.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
MOS is fine.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Referencing is fine. You'll want to see to ref 6 as above, but it's only a grammatical error, not a mis-citation.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Scope's fine. You've got a nice "Cultural references" section which is cited and in prose, which can be a rarity.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable.
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:
Images are grand. Both used correctly. One is commons and not a problem, the other is fair-use with a solid rationale.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
95% ready to go. Just going to hold this one while the problems with 1a are sorted, which should add up to about 5 minutes of editing all told.

Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Fixed the ref thing for you, it was just a case of changing the "pages=" field to "page=" instead, I probably should have made that clearer. Still, article has passed. Well done! GRAPPLE X 23:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]