Talk:Initiation (The Office)/GA1
Latest comment: 16 years ago by ThinkBlue in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the lead, this sentence ---> "Pam is supposed to keep track Michael's productivity", it would be best if "of" would be added after "track". In the Synopsis section, this sentence ---> "At Dunder Mifflin Stamford" that does not make sense and it would be best if it were re-written.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- In the lead, this sentence ---> "Pam is supposed to keep track Michael's productivity", it would be best if "of" would be added after "track". In the Synopsis section, this sentence ---> "At Dunder Mifflin Stamford" that does not make sense and it would be best if it were re-written.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- In the Reception section, it would be best if "Entertainment Weekly" were italicized, per here.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- In the Reception section, it would be best if "Entertainment Weekly" were italicized, per here.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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 3 needs to be fixed.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reference 3 needs to be fixed.
- 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:
- Is TV.com a reliable source?
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Is TV.com a reliable source?
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed all the problems except 2a. Unfortunatly, the spam filter won't let post the actual link. I've asked for it to be un-banned at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but so far there has been no reply. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the Whitelisting process can be a bit lengthy. I'd ask the reviewer to not fail this article due to the Whitelisting process. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 3 has been fixed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing the ref. settings, Mr.crabby, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 3 has been fixed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the Whitelisting process can be a bit lengthy. I'd ask the reviewer to not fail this article due to the Whitelisting process. Mastrchf (t/c) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)