Talk:Babylon 5/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SnowFire (talk · contribs) 01:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Disclaimer: I don't normally do too much TV show editing, much less GAC editing, but since this has been unreviewed for more than 6 months, I figure perfectionists had their chance.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   A few thoughts: The sentence in the lede about production cost over time is weird. It might be relevant that Babylon 5 was a "Cheap" show that got renewed because they stayed within a tight budget, but the actual amounts are not easy for a generalist audience to grok. Are the Minbari really best summarized as "intellectual?" "Religious", perhaps. Is it really that unusual that certain actors might be hired for just some episodes, and that it would save money to hire them for fewer episodes? That sounds obvious, but maybe I'm missing something. Who is the quote about real emotion from actors from? Maybe don't have that as a parenthetical thought, but just a normal sentence with "XYZ said..." The bit in broadcast history is interesting and should maybe be highlighted more elsewhere, but reads incoherently at the moment. What seems to be being said is that the show stayed under budget and made a profit by PTEN's standards, but by some other standard it didn't run a profit, so JMS never got cut a check for some percentage of that profit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Right at the high-end of word count, but sure.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Are there any sources for the mastering problems section that aren't the interview with producer John Copeland? Not that it's a bad source, but interviews are not real high on the reliable source tier when talking about potentially controversial, I tried to do something awesome but the other people stopped me stuff. If not, it might be worth qualifying more of the statements with "According to John Copeland..."

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   File:Old School.gif seems a stretch. There's a fair use rationale, but I'm not sold there's any "identification" or "Critical commentary" going on that would make it pass WP:FUC #8. (On the other hand, the article could probably quite reasonably argue for "more" cast pictures and the like, to the extent that it reflects the changing cast - e.g. a season 1 or season 2 group shot, and a season 5 shot (since season 4 is already there). Not mandatory or anything, but you'll see that in some long-running shows with cast turnover.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice work overall! The issues above should be fixable enough.

Note: The article was revised in response to the above, and in particular, the Broadcast History section reads a bit better. We can always discuss the proper way to introduce the Minbari on the talk page, not a big enough deal to derail this. Nice work, will adjust to a pass! SnowFire (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)