Talk:Who Made Huckabee?/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Beginning section, this sentence ---> "while Chuck Norris was coincidentally sponsoring Huckabee", somehow "sponsoring" doesn't seem to be the right word, how 'bout using "endorsing"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, it would be best if "Stephen Colbert" is linked once, per here. In the Beginning section, why is "November 2007" linked? Also, with that, dates are to be un-linked, per here. Same section, it would be best if to add (WGA) after "Writers Guild of America", I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article. In The feud ends section, link "Rocky III" once. In the Ironic subtext section, "The Associated Press" is italicized, but in the Aftermath section is not italicized, that needs to be fixed. The article has a red link, if it doesn't have an article, it would be best to un-link it, per here.
Half-check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've fixed most of the things you've noticed, but I'm not quite sure what you mean regarding the dates. You want I should unlink full dates (e.g., February 4, 2008), or just generic ones such as the month and the year? — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the new Manual of Style, for the dates, all dates need to be un-linked, including example links "November 2007" and "March 4, 2008", all dates like that need to be un-linked. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done All righty then — problem rectified! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-check. Links like "November 2007" and similar to that need to be un-linked. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm* OK, I think I got 'em all now. :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Cinemaniac for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! :) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]