Talk:Overdrawn at the Memory Bank/GA1
Latest comment: 3 years ago by GamerPro64 in topic GA Review
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The lead - WNET-TV redirects to WNET. I don't think the -TV is needed.
The Cast section - The cast and roles should be referenced, though not through unreliable websites such as IMDb.- Have not been told to do that, even when I made two Featured Articles on films. GamerPro64 01:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fair point. Dang, a GA reviewer that I dealt with must have been very strict. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Have not been told to do that, even when I made two Featured Articles on films. GamerPro64 01:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Production and release section - WNET-TV should be WNET.
- See above. GamerPro64 01:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The Production and release section - laserdisc should be LaserDisc
- References - Would you be able to clip the newspaper.com references so that others can read them?
- I would but then I realized that I have a different username for Newspapers and would not want that to be revealed. GamerPro64 01:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Would you mind if I took care of that? I have an account. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure go ahead. GamerPro64 01:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Would you mind if I took care of that? I have an account. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would but then I realized that I have a different username for Newspapers and would not want that to be revealed. GamerPro64 01:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Image - I'm not sure why the source website is listed under Source and under the licensing template.
- Removed the superfluous link. GamerPro64 01:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that you fixed the issues that were raised in the earlier peer review. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I ran Earwig and everything checks out. I see that the issues were taken care of and I added the newspaper.com clippings.
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: SL93 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)