Jump to content

Talk:Superman: Ultimate Flight/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: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 23:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!--Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the review. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
minus Removed Themeparkgc  Talk  06:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2003 versions differ slightly from the original in Georgia; however, the majority of the layout remains the same." - Should this really be in the 'History' section? Sounds more suitable for the 'Characteristic' section as it already is so maybe just remove this statement?.-Dom497 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed Themeparkgc  Talk  06:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  06:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed Themeparkgc  Talk  06:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Working Themeparkgc  Talk  06:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I don't think it won any awards as such but I have added some rankings from the Golden Ticket Awards and Best Roller Coaster Poll. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a small pet peeve of mine...in the ref section, some have it dd-mm-yyyy while others have mm-dd-yyyy. Maybe pick one format to make them consistent?--Dom497 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the duplication of the links certainly serves a purpose here. I think it helps supplement having just three official websites there and provides a bit more balance. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a question from me to you as it was brought up in the SheiKra FA review: Should the Amusement Today refs use the cite journal template rather than the cite web?--Dom497 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Amusement Today is a periodical, then it should use cite journal, shouldn't it? The article currently uses this template. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Wasn't really part of this review, just a question I had for you. :P --Dom497 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be it. Good job!.--Dom497 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]