Talk:The Bishop Revival/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 18:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is grand. I would change references to "the week's villain" to "the episode's villain", as the episode exists outside of its original broadcast. The main image's caption also seems overly long, so I'd probably lose the last sentence in it. I'd also avoid easter egg links, so change " last seen in a first season episode" to "last seen in the first season episode "Ability"".

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   MOS is grand. I'd retitle "Music and cultural references" to just "Cultural references" though - classical music is still culture, even if it's not modern pop culture.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Citations are grand, no problem there.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is just right, not too much or too little.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is grand.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stability is fine.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Image is tagged appropriately.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Image is used well, though, as mentioned above, caption is a bit on the long side. for it being an infobox.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Article seems all set to go, so I'm going to go ahead and pass this as a Good Article.

Thank you very much! :) Ruby2010 comment! 03:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)