Jump to content

Talk:The Bishop Revival

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Bishop Revival has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starThe Bishop Revival is part of the Fringe (season 2) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 30, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 26, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Nazi storyline in the Fringe episode "The Bishop Revival" was well-received by Entertainment Weekly for featuring a "good threat"?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Bishop Revival/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is grand. I would change references to "the week's villain" to "the episode's villain", as the episode exists outside of its original broadcast. The main image's caption also seems overly long, so I'd probably lose the last sentence in it. I'd also avoid easter egg links, so change " last seen in a first season episode" to "last seen in the first season episode "Ability"".
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    MOS is grand. I'd retitle "Music and cultural references" to just "Cultural references" though - classical music is still culture, even if it's not modern pop culture.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Citations are grand, no problem there.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Scope is just right, not too much or too little.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutrality is grand.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Stability is fine.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Image is tagged appropriately.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Image is used well, though, as mentioned above, caption is a bit on the long side. for it being an infobox.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article seems all set to go, so I'm going to go ahead and pass this as a Good Article.
Thank you very much! :) Ruby2010 comment! 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Bishop Revival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Bishop Revival. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bishop_Revival&oldid=1217227418"