Talk:Johari Window (Fringe)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]


Reading this article is the first time I've dealt with Fringe at all in my life, so this will be from the point of view of a complete outsider. Here goes.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Clear and understandable, but not exactly polished. Good enough but I'd copy-edit it in the future if you want to take this further.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS seems fine to me.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Citations seem fine to me, nothing needing one is lacking one.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Sources look alright, nothing sticks out as suspect.
    C. No original research:
    The "cultural references" section seems a bit OR-ish to me, but only a tad - I'd say "over-expanded-upon" more than anything else. I'd trim it down to just include the references, without explaining them too much - which you do a little shakily (for instance, no one's deformed in "Deliverance"; you could just say "Walter and Peter whistle "Dueling Banjos" from the film Deliverance" instead.)
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Gets in all the points it needs to in order to cover the topic properly.
    B. Focused:
    Doesn't stray or meander to other topics, sticks to the article's subject.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Seems NPOV and unbiased to me.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Seems stable to me - influx of additions in recent weeks but no disputes or reversions.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Both images check out, one is fair use, one is creative commons.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Both images are used appropriately and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    All in all, I'm going to pass this article as a GA. My only concerns are about the one section noted above, and they aren't strong enough to detract from the fact that the rest of the article has been handled well. However, I would like to see this addressed in the future.
  • Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I'll keep your suggestions in mind for the future. Thanks again, Ruby2010 talk 01:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]