Talk:Dark Angel (American TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I was able to get through these articles quicker than I thought, so here I am. I only have one article Kaumodaki left to finish. BenLinus1214^talk 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would put subheadings for where you describe season 1 and season 2.

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• At the beginning of the "planned storylines" subsection—I would recommend "planned for season 3: to bring together the storylines…" instead of what you have now.

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Give the section where you describe the mythology a copyedit—there's a bit of informal phrasing and such. Also, put something that tells the reader you're now describing the mythology—I was a bit confused when I first read it. Just "The show's mythology was planned to be that…" would suffice.

• Done. Let me know if you think it needs more work. Freikorp (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would really rework the "cast and characters" section to be more detailed. I would recommend that you transform it into prose in a manner similar to that of The Office (U.S. TV series), Veronica Mars, or Arrested Development (TV series). That way, it's more detailed and informative. Preferably, there would also be a file depicting the cast of one of the seasons, but that's no big deal if no such image exists.

• Changed. Is this enough or do you think I need more information. If so, what on? I've also added an image. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's very good. BenLinus1214^talk 12:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Up until after the "we explore what that could mean" quote, I don't see any of the material except for the teaming up with Eglee sentence cited in the Boca Raton news source.

• Added the inline citations that were missing. I didn't find a reference for the info about the Spiderman film (that was already there before I started overhauling the article, and i've found plenty of unreliable sources that talk about it, but nothing solid) so I removed that. Freikorp (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's a bit strange to have a subsection called "production" within the production section—maybe "casting and filming" would be better?

• Not sure how I missed that one. Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• The structure of the "broadcast history" section is a bit troubling—there's some ratings figures in there that would better fit with the Reception section, but some stuff about scheduling, renewal, cancellation, and costs make more sense in Production.

• I've relocated most of the information from that section, let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• That's a lot better. BenLinus1214^talk 12:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Instead of just stating, "The producers were initially told a third season had been approved" before jumping into the quote, expand the sentence: "…, but two days later, Fox informed them that the series had actually been cancelled."

• Good point. Done. Freikorp (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• This article could use some images in general, so I added one. Let me know what you think.

• It's a shame commons doesn't have an image of Alba from around the time she was filming the show, but nevertheless adding the image was a good call. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I found review of season one by People.

• Added a brief mention of that, and a brief mention from another People article I found. Freikorp (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also, your Rolling Stone, Time, Orlando Sentinel, and Howard Rosenberg things should be sourced. I would be kind of surprised all of them came from the book, but I guess it's possible. If that's the case, make sure it's cited.

• They all do come from the book source actually. I added another inline citation, let me know if you think further inline citations are needed. Freikorp (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, that's good. BenLinus1214^talk 12:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Put an overall critical consensus up top (maybe "mostly positive reviews"?), followed by season one reviews, season two reviews, and reception to Max.

• Added some information on it. Let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• For the awards and nominations list, it's okay if you don't cite things directly in the table, but you have to make sure that both the wins and nominations are cited for everything. For example, the 2001 Teen Choice Awards Ref only lists the winners, even though there were two other nominations, according to the table. Also, your Kids' Choice and Golden Reel Awards aren't cited at all.

• I've removed all the unreferenced nominations you mentioned. I built the table first then went backwards trying to find sources for them all, and those were the ones I couldn't find sources for. Freikorp (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Are the short synopses of Dark Angel novels part of refs 15 or 50?

• No, they just confirm that a series of books exists and that it picks up where the series ended respectively. Should I cite the actual books themselves for the brief synopsis'? Freikorp (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I'm done. Putting it on hold until these relatively minor issues are resolved. BenLinus1214^talk 23:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@BenLinus1214: I've replied to each of your concerns, have a look and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Good job! It's a lot better now. Pass. BenLinus1214^talk 12:56, 15 July 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: