Talk:Roosters (Millennium)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roosters (Millennium)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Fourth on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC) @Grapple X: Comments

• Period after the end of the first para of lead.

  Oops.

• ""Roosters" is a two-part episode, continuing the story which began in "Owls"." This makes it unclear whether or not "Roosters" itself is double length or whether "Owls"/"Roosters" is just a two-part episode. I assume you mean the latter, but specify that.

  Clarified.

• I don't think that the guest star sentence should be in the first paragraph, as the lead should reflect the structure of the article. If it's relevant to the production section, it should be in the third paragraph.

  Moved it around.

• "The pair had also taken the roles of co-executive producers for the season." Awkward wording that could be conveyed more concisely earlier; you should say "frequent collaborators and co-executive producers…" while taking out this auxiliary sentence.

  Rearranged this to be part of the first sentence.

• Capitalize "Middle East".

  Done.

• Production looks good, except that I think that at the beginning of the second paragraph, you should specify which plot Morgan was talking about.

  I'm not sure what you mean, in the section you mention, titles are specified.

• Do we have any information about how the episode performed in its timeslot?

  Unfortunately not—the overall rating yes, and the viewing numbers that translates to, but nothing relative or ranking-based.

• I think there's more in the AV Club review that you can use in the article.

  Added a bit more from it.

• At the beginning of the paragraph on reviews, you should put a sentence with something like "The episode received a mixed critical reaction, which commentators generally praising ___ and disliking ___".

  I was trying to, but all of the reviews focus on pretty different things—one on acting, one on plot, one on direction—so there isn't really a general trend. Is there another way you'd like to see it phrased?

• Thanks for the review. I've responded above. GRAPPLE ^X 09:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's all I have. Nice work so far! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Grapple X: I am satisfied enough with the changes you made to the article, so I can pass now. Congratulations! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: