Talk:Jermaine (Adventure Time)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review pending

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues with prose, concise writing style, good grammar, does indeed respect copyright laws, and Copyvio Detector linked to from GA Toolbox shows no significant issues -- EXCELLENT JOB HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, NICE WORK !
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	WP:LEAD sect is okay for now, but should be expanded after addition of further secondary sources.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good layout, good structural organization, good use of citations, throughout.
	2b. 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).	Duly cited throughout to WP:RS sources. I checked with Checklinks tool and no problems here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	At present, it appears about 30 percent of the sources cited are primary sources. Need to add good amount more secondary source coverage to balance this out a bit more.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Please add some Background info, as was already skillfully done at Bad Timing (Adventure Time). Please expand Reception info with additional secondary sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Could even go into a bit more detail, specifically on Reception info.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Unclear. Article does not present enough secondary source coverage of Reception info to merit comprehensive analysis on NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Upon inspection of article edit history and article talk page and article talk page history, article is stable going back over four (4) months.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good fair use rationale on image page.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image is relevant to the topic, as argued in fair use rationale at the image page.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@23W:Any updates on this one ? — Cirt (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not GA at this time

Unfortunately, closing this one as not GA at this time.

I see GA Nominator has not been back to revisit, and also hasn't been on Wikipedia in one week.

Hopefully above GA Review will help future editors improve the page quality.

And if GA Nominator returns and sees this, please feel free to address above, and then let me know.

Good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)