Talk:All That Glitters (American TV series)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, there are hypens instead of endashes. In the Critical reaction section, "TIME magazine" ---> "Time magazine", per here. Same section, italicize "Billboard", per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Reference 16 is missing Publisher info. Also, for the books, I recommend using the {{Harvard citation}} template format.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• n-dashes added. TIME --> Time. Billboard italicized. Publisher info added for ref 16. Unless it's make-or-break I would rather not spend the time converting the references to Harvard citation.

• Check. Thank you to Otto, who was Casper at first, for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for a good GA experience. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)