Talk:The Holy Trinity (The Grand Tour)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
 | The Holy Trinity (The Grand Tour) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 13, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Holy Trinity (The Grand Tour) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from The Holy Trinity (The Grand Tour) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holy Trinity (The Grand Tour)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll look this one over and review it later. Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination
editI am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 13, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: After high quality articles including Syro, NHL 17, The 2nd Law, Right Thoughts, Right Words, Right Action, El Camino (The Black Keys album), Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, Madness (Muse song), Reflektor (song), and House of Jealous Lovers, this appears to be the first television related GA nomination by the nominator, and it is quite good. The writing quality is good, it is "clear and concise" and flows well. Good organizational structure and layout for the page. Good lede intro section which nicely introduces the reader to the topic. Good summary section, which is neutral and matter of fact.
- 2. Verifiable?: 22 citations formatted well in an in-line citation style for all asserted facts.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers Introduction, Summary, Filming and production, and Release and reception. I like the choice of header titles for the sections. The article is of adequate scope and breadth for its particular episode topic.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Article presents its topic in a neutral tone. Wording is matter of fact. Satisfies NPOV.
- 5. Stable? No edit wars going back to article creation in January 2017. No talk page problems. Article satisfies WP:WIAGA for stability.
- 6. Images?: 3 images used. One fair use. Two free use. Fair use has adequate fair use rationale. Free use each have okay licensing.
Good job ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagecandor: Thanks for reviewing this! Aria1561 (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- My pleasure, thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
