Talk:Son of God (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: mone found. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   It was first broadcast in the United Kingdom on 1 April 2001, yet Son of God ran for a single series of three episodes, Please make it clear that it was the first episide which was broadcast on 1 April

   Done.

   others remarked that it was dumbed down went off on some strange tangents. misdsing "and"?

   Added.

   and was executively produced by Ruth Pitt, "and the executive produder was Ruth Pitt" is better

   Replaced.

   Despite not being religious, he was drawn to programme for its use of scientific and historical information. missing definite article.

   Added.

   The completed programme ultimately featured more than an hour and a half of Whitbourn's music "ultimately" is uneccessary here

   Removed.

   who employed techniques similar to ones used in the recent BBC series Walking with Dinosaurs. recent is a potentially dated term, give a date.

   Done.

   astrologers from around time of Herod the Great would have believed that the constellation Aries would have symbolised his kingdom and the lands that he controlled missing definite article

   Added.

   where Jesus is traditionally was to have spent 40 days and nights being tempted by the devil. ?? ungrammatical

   Rewritten.

   a retired medical artist from the Unit of Art in Medicine at the University of Manchester Why the capitalization?

   Removed.

   Actually, I now see that is the name of a department so I have recapitalized. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Critical reaction to Son of God was mixed. The series received praise from commentators such as Andrew Billen of New Statesman missing definite article

   Where? The magazine's official title is "New Statesman" rather than "The New Stateman".

   Indeed it is, but I meant "of the New Statesman" I have copy-edited to this effect. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   It was repeated during March the following year, and gained a figure of 1.5 million viewers per episode. Was this in the US or the UK?

   Added.

   The series was nominated for two awards, both for the computer-generated images created by graphics team Red Vision. The show received a nomination at the 2001 LEAF Awards, and won an Outstanding Achievement award at the 2001 Royal Television Society North Awards. Were the two awards the LEAF and RTSN? It is not clear in the way it is currently phrased.

   Rewritten.

   It was also repeated on Christmas Day 2002 and 2003. Where - UK or US?

   Added.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Spotchecks show statements are supported by sources, sources appear RS, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient detail without uneccessary trivia

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

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):

   Two images have correct license or NFUR and vaptions, but File:Race of Jesus.ogv has contradictory information in the NFUR. An 18-second video sample from episode two of the BBC history series Son of God. and Extracted from episode three of Son of God Needs sorting out.

   Done.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   OK, good to go. I am happy to list this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for the review, Jezhotwells! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)