Talk:Aiden Ford/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! I've previously reviewed Jeffrey Spender and as there is a rather large backlog under Film and Television I thought I'd help out and review some more.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Lead/Infobox

No major problems that I can see.

Character arc

 Done "The only family that Ford mentions are his grandparents." Then why does the infobox mention a cousin?

 Done "Ford is diagnosed to have suruvived an overdose of addictive" rewrite and spelling.

 Done CITEs two and three should be moved to their respective claims.

 Done "Pegasus galaxy to harvest their enzyme that would give him super-human strength." needs a rewrite, also I'm seem to remember he needed the enzyme (in the sense that he was addicted) am I remembering correctly?

 Done "The Wraith-enzyme allowed Ford to immediately rematerialize on-board a Wraith-hive ship," it did?

 Done "help in destroying an entire Wraith Hive-ship," as opposed to part of one?

Conceptual History

 Done Doesn't mention developing the character before the series started.

 Done "Ford had not worked as intended and was highly underused as a result." needs a CITE.

 Done Sentence 4 and 5 both need CITEs.

 Done "they had reduced Ford to a recurring character in the series." Can the announcement saying this be found.

 Done "never fully developed compared to the other characters in the show" needs a CITE, also "many fans" which ones and where?

 Done "Many campaigns to save the character were created after the announcement." a few examples would be nice.

 Done "since he and Brad Wright had already discussed the change." needs a CITE.

Reception

Bit on the small side and only seems to focus on his "Bring back" campaign, which whilst important, doesn't really tell us why people wanted him back. Does "F.O.R.D." still exist somewhere?

 Not done I can't seem to find anything else!

That should be okay, a minor character that only existed for one season. Should be fine as-is. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References

 Done As with the other GA reviews I've done a simple rewrite on the "credits=" parameter is needed.

 Done CITE 8, 10 and 11 need to have publication dates added "date="

 Doneall the weblinks check out so no problems there.