Talk:The Giggle/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:52, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 07:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take the review for this one. It's very well written, so I don't think it will have many, if any, issues. I'll list the issues in around half an hour. Best of Luck. — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Plot

• head of UNIT → Head of UNIT/UNIT head or something similar (if the grammar seems correct to you, leave it be)

Ratings

• Use another reference for the overnight ratings(maybe the TV Zone one linked in the next sentence). Keep the DWN one for now, bcs AI is only given there
• Replace the DWN reference for consolidated ratings, with a more realiable one(perhaps the Barb Audiences one used on the series article page)

Remarks

• Just mentioning CultBox and Doctor Who News Page and other similar websites, in case there are issues later regarding them, so that the review isn't called into question. Doesn't need any changes at the given moment

Result

Great work done on the page, I have checked it three times and these are the only issues I could find. Good Luck. — DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·