Talk:The Beast Below/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Will get to this weekend. Ruby 2010/2013 20:34, 6 December 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• The plot summary is a bit long, but I understand more detail is often needed for complicated episodes. Is there anything trivial that can be taken out or reworded?

• I noticed this too but there was nothing major I could cut out as everything is sort of connected to the reason behind what is going on with the ship, though I did remove some things. If you can think of any other suggestions please tell me. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Gillan put in some of her own wonder at the set into the scene where Amy admires the street for the first time.[8]" I see what you're trying to say here, but this could be rephrased a little to make it more clear

• Reworded. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "IGN's Matt Wales was more mixed..." You mean his opinion was mixed?

• Fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "He considered it it imaginative..."

• Fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Refs: Make sure they're all lowercase in the titles.

• Fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why do you have publishers for some of the refs, but not for others?

• Fixed, I think (Metro seemed to be the only one). Glimmer721 ^talk 01:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks great overall. Just address the above issues and it will be good to go!

Looks good! Happy to pass this one. Ruby 2010/2013 02:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)