Talk:FZZT/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

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

   I applaud the sourcing of all the quoted material from Bear McCreary but am uncomfortable with the sheer amount of quotes in the "Music" section. Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE it would be better to place these quotes within a box-quote using Template:Quote or to paraphrase some of the material. Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

   Much better - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool, no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   No edit-warring, yay! Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This Review is on hold pending the McCreary quotes in the Music section being adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review Shearonink! I have given the music section a c/e to paraphrase most of the quotes instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

   I am giving the article some proofreading readthroughs to see if I missed anything of a GA concern. Pending completing my passthroughs, I think I will be able to finish up this Review within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

   Nicely-written & factual, appreciate the non-puffery. I do wish some more images could be added but understand that it's Marvel and copyrights and trademarks and...well, yeah. Shearonink (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Adamstom.97: I think that a page move to something along the lines of "FZZT" (Agents of S.H.I.E.LD.) might be something to consider. I had forgotten that other episodes used this type of nomenclature until I went to place the article on the Good articles Television page. Shearonink (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

   We have used that for some other S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes, but it is generally only warranted if there is another article with the same title. And I will think about more images, but it is hard to find good ones to use that aren't copyrighted and stuff. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)