Talk:Peter (Fringe episode)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 19:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well-written enough for GA, no major MoS concerns

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   One source query below

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   neutral and balanced

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No apparent problems with stability or content disputes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Reasonable use of a non-free image, images are appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is very close to being a good article. The only issue really is with one of the aources. I'm concerned about the reliability of MissGeeky.com. Can you comment on this? Some of the other sources seem to be borderline reliable (in my opinion) but have some support across WP (eg. at WP:RSN and WP:FAC), so I'm not too concerned.

• 1 disambiguation link fixed
• No apparent problems with dead links
• No apparent problems with plagiarism based on Corenbot, Earwig's tool and spot checks

Other suggestions (not required)

• It might be clearer to explicitly state that the final part of the plot takes place in the present day (I assume the series as a whole is set in the present-day...)
• Watch for overlinking, eg. television series and sunglasses - do we really need links to those articles?
• ""Peter" was set in 1985, with a much younger Walter Bishop, as well as his wife and son." - perhaps would be slightly less awkward as something like "Peter" was set in 1985, with a much younger Walter, Elizabeth and Peter Bishop.

I'll place this on hold to allow the issue of the source to be addressed. --BelovedFreak 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. The MissGeeky.com source displays an interview John Noble had with multiple journalists (the same interview is covered here and here for instance). I can replace the MissGeeky source with one of those, if you like. I've also addressed your optional concerns. Thanks again, Ruby2010 talk 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be much happier with one of those sources. :) --BelovedFreak 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done :) Ruby2010 talk 21:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. I'm happy to list the article as a good article. Well done! --BelovedFreak 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Ruby2010 talk 21:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)