Jump to content

Talk:One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish/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
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


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

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Well done.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In the Plot, you might want to correctly link "on tape" to its correspondence article.
    Check.
  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:
    In the Reception section, "DVD Movie Guide's Colin Jacobson said that despite a "potentially gimmicky tone", the episode provided "a lot of fun moments along with a little emotional content as well. The show usually balanced sentimentality cleanly, and that occurred here; it avoided becoming too syrupy and featured just enough emotion to make an impact. It also contained some great bits, like Lisa and Bart’s karaoke performance of the 'Theme from Shaft'. It also ended on a hilarious and incisive note", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here and here. Do the same for the Jeremy Kleinman quote.
    Check.
    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:
    Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thanks for the review! :) TheLeftorium 20:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for the review. Thank you to Theleftorium 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) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! TheLeftorium 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]