Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.^[7] Done
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.^[8] Done
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Done
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Done
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Done

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Reasonably well written	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Seems to adhere to main points of MOS.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Large chunks of article with no references.	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	sources appear reliable.	Pass
(c) (original research)	I am concerned that the amount of unsourced information could be OR.	Fail

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The major aspects are there and even some of the fan based speculation, but the latter is the main problem. Too broad in coverage with no references.	Fail
(b) (focused)	Uhm....it needs a lot of work on focus. I am not sure the direction being used for the theological comparison works for this article and is based on an article with multiple issues. Really need to loose that whole allusions section. Perhaps best to stick to themes and use inline citations.	WTF!?

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
I don't see major issues with the general neutrality of the prose and the way things sre presented. Seems reasonably encyclopedic. Concerned that the overall neutrality of subject has strayed with unsourced speculation.	Fail

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

Notes	Result
Stable.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	NA-No images to tag.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	NA-No images. Would not fail over it, but could use at least a Fair use screen cap.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	At this time I feel the article still needs a good deal of work. It could use a screen cap but the fact that the article had no images is not part of the decision. There needs to be a good copy edit and removal of a large portion of content, references need to be located and added etc.. For this reason the article is not being put on hold.

References

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
^ Small articles that have a single main source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline citations. Inline citations may not be required for some articles; the criteria name the only six types of material that require inline citations.
^ Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are covered equally: instead no point of view should be given undue weight.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[refs-7] Small articles that have a single main source may still be adequately referenced without the use of inline citations. Inline citations may not be required for some articles; the criteria name the only six types of material that require inline citations.

[npov-8] Articles on controversial topics can be both neutral and stable, but this is only ensured if regular editors make scrupulous efforts to keep the article well-referenced. Note that neutrality does not mean that all points of view are covered equally: instead no point of view should be given undue weight.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]