Talk:0-8-4/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The second sentence of the second paragraph in the plot section ("They find the object...") is a bit of a run on. I think it would read better split into two sentences. The sentence right after that has an awkward mix of commas and dashes. This could also be written more clearly. The final sentence ("When they are all attacked...") includes an awkward pause to mention the weapon and explain the Bus. I think something like "...the S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and soldiers escape and take the weapon to the plane that serves as the agents' mobile base." flows better. In the next paragraph, the name-drop of Slingshot doesn't seem particularly significant. I think the text would read easier if was just referred to as "a classified S.H.I.E.L.D. facility." Would a link to post-credits scene be appropriate for Sam Jackson's appearance? I can't tell from the text exactly where it occurred. In the Development and casting section, I don't think we need to list all the films Nick Fury appeared in. Just mentioning "his role from MCU films" seems sufficient. Under ratings, "timeshifted viewers" should link to Time shifting. Under critical response, you could add a link for MTV.com. "Graeme Virtue, of The Guardian, called" doesn't need the commas. The final sentence ("Jim Steranko...") would read better if it were split in two.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A variety of good sources used.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good work here. It's come along way from the AfD.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Remarkably stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'm not sure the Sam Jackson image is the best representation of the episode, but it is mentioned in several places through the article. I'd have gone with Leonor Varela and/or the weapon, but this works too. It needs alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A few spots need copy editing, but that and the missing alt text are the only fixes needed. Good work. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Argento Surfer: I hit a few of the requests, but not all (some wikilinking, small c/e, and the alt text). I didn't have the time to get the other 2a comments at the moment. Myself or Adam will get to it shortly. Though I can say, that linking to post-credits scene would be incorrect, because the scene aired at the end after Gregg's "We'll return in a moment" card, and before the final credits. So I think "end tag" is the best wording for it, and though it is like a post-credit scene in spirit, linking would be incorrect in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Argento, thanks for the review. I think I have got the rest of the issues you raised. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work guys. Pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)