Talk:Show Me the Monkey

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Show Me the Monkey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

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.	Production sect looks a bit skimpy. Any chance you could find more info for that sect in secondary sources or possibly DVD commentary? Copyvio Detector tool shows four (4) sources with over 30 percent confidence with large quotes. Please trim quotes, or paraphrase, or remove, but probably just trim quotes a bit, to get those 4 sources below 30 percent confidence. For example: Eric Goldman of IGN gave the episode an 8.2 out of 10, indicating that it was "great". Writing that it was "a fun episode that furthered several storylines", he also lauded Mac's reappearance, stating, "It was definitely great to see Mac heavily involved in the story, and even more so after she was given a brand spankin' new love interest…Mac's trepidation about a relationship, following what happened with Cassidy/Beaver last season, and been forgotten for awhile, but here it was brought back, through a series of scenes that ultimately ended on an optimistic note for Mac and her potential new guy." -- the quote should not be so long so as to be the greatest majority of material in the paragraph. The paragraph should be prose text, with brief quotes, to support that prose text -- not supplant it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD at present time. Suggest three paragraphs, of about four sentences each. Last paragraph of lede sect could summarize Reception sect, as reception info currently MISSING from lede intro sect.
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.	Everything okay here except image caption could use a citation.
	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).	Though Checklinks doesn't show any current issues, strongly suggest archiving all links with archiveurl and archivedate, as it's not a lot to ask for such a small article. This will increase posterity greatly for WP:V over the longer term.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article does indeed rely primarily upon secondary sources, throughout.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article does indeed address major aspects of topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good overall focus to article. However, Ratings sect is one-line-sentence-long-subsection. Suggest merging and just removing the two daughter sects and calling the whole thing one big Reception sect.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article neglects to mention any Reception info in the lede intro sect, at all. Therefore if the reader were to only read the intro sect, they wouldn't know anything, positive or negative, about neutrality and perspective of reception.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No stability issues going back to September 2015.
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.	Image hosted on Commons with OTRS confirmation - best case presentation here, good job.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Please add in-line citation to image caption to verify why it is relevant to the topic in the factual assertion already present in the image caption.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Days. — Cirt (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thanks for the review. I have responded to all of your comments--I have successfully trimmed quotes, expanded the lead and production sections, archived all the links, and took care of the other smaller concerns. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. Simply excellent response to review by Johanna. Great job. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations, above. — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)