Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Any point I raise is open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
These are my edits. Any of them can be revised/reverted if you do not like them.
I like them. My only change was correcting a minor typo. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh. Thanks for catching that... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited (#8) for the VHS release date only says the VHS "made its home video debut last week". I suggest adding source #9 to this sentence as well, since it gives the specific date.
Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in 1994, Margaret Loesch, formerly the CEO of Fox Kids," - according to her article, she was still the CEO in 1994. I suggest revising this to "then-CEO", "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time", or some other wording that indicates she wasn't a former CEO in 1994.
Changed to "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time". Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no cocnern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern. AGF for the print/subscription sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I remember the initial broadcast being during primetime, but that may have been a local decision. This detail isn't necessary to pass GA, but it might be something to look into if you plan to improve the article further.
Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
There are a few points under 1A that I don't feel comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one looks pretty good. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I made the relevant changes. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good here. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]