Talk:Monique Jeffries/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Wait, Jerry Orbach's son plays Jerry Orbach's character's nephew? I love it.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is generally good but there's a few stylistic things I'd suggest.
   For one; in the infobox you have 1999–2001 as a year range but the next field uses "1, 2" to list seasons. As they're consecutive, I'd suggest using "1–2" as a range to keep things looking more consistent.
   When you mention that she is "replaced" by Ice-T, is it just her place in the cast or does the new character pair up with her old partner as well? Just if it's the former, then use a real-world perspective when mentioning the replacement, if the latter then phrase it to imply it's in-universe.
   "but later feels exhilarated over having survived the incident and starts feeling overconfident" -> "feel" is used here twice. Perhaps "and starts acting overly confident".
   "the Showtime drama television series Leap Years" -> ditch "television" here, it's pretty redundant here and the phrase is already a little clunky.
   "Roger Friedman, an entertainment journalist, of Fox News" -> "Roger Friedman, an entertainment journalist for Fox News" or "entertainment journalist Roger Friedman, of Fox News".
   "had untapped potential that appeared ready to be tapped" -> The use of "tapped" here twice should be fixed unless this is a quote, in which case leave the wording and quote it.

   The prose has been fixed =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   Prose fixes look good. I'll pass this one once the deal with ref 3 is sorted out (I'd do it myself but there's two different episodes cited to source that storyline and as I don't watch the show I don't know which one is more appropriate, or if both are relevant). GRAPPLE X 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   • Please note, I also made a tweak regarding your feedback on the "replaced" wording with the Ice-T character. — Hunter Kahn 03:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is grand.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Ref 3 is used only in the lead, and seems to be backing up information which is cited to other refs later. Move the ref down to the plot section and incorporate it there.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   • I actually just removed Ref 3 altogether. It was only citing info that was already cited in the body of the text itself by non-episode sources, so I don't think it was necessary in the article at all. Let me know if you disagree. — Hunter Kahn 03:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

     That's fine. I just didn't know what actually happened in the individual episodes cited so I wasn't sure whether keeping one, the other, or both was best. GRAPPLE X 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Generally seems okay. Anything else that could be added to the "Reception" header wouldn't go amiss though.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fine.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Grand.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Rationale for the image seems okay; bit light but it covers what it needs to. There probably are suitable free images to add in addition but unless you could expand the "Reception" section further I can't see there being any need for one.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Just a few prose niggles to see to here, really. Shouldn't take long to get sorted. GRAPPLE X 00:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   All good to go now, passing. GRAPPLE X 04:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)