Talk:The War for Late Night/GA1

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):

   FUR on the book cover looks sufficient.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I haven't passed a good article before, but this looks like it should be fine with some minor adjustments. Firstly the dead links will need fixing. They all look like well-trafficked media websites so there should be captures on Wayback for them. And a picky one: the references are using several different date styles. I also didn't quite understand this sentence:

"Carter details an exchange between NBC executive Jeff Zucker and O'Brien's agent Rick Rosen during which Zucker told O'Brien's representatives after details of the conflict were leaked to the media."

Are there some words missing?

There was one other trouble I had reading through it. Obviously the research for the book comes before it was written. However, placing the description of the author's research before the description of the book's contents creates a problem for readers with no knowledge of the subject. Before reading this article, I didn't know anything about the conflict between O'Brien and Leno. And that's perhaps the most important piece of background information that needs to be provided for context: What was the dispute? I was left wondering until I got to the description of the book's contents, where the answer was integrated with the book's story (which I suppose makes sense).

I think it would be a good idea to consider switching the positions of those second and third sections. If you think that would disrupt the flow, perhaps a quick description of the dispute in the first section ("Background") might clear up the issue.

Overall, the article was very interesting to read, and is easily a fine candidate. Osiris (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to above comments by Osiris

Okay, thanks very much for the above review, I'll get on addressing the above points and then note the responses, back here on the GA Review page. :) — Cirt (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Thanks very much for the positive comments about the quality of the article!
2. I've gone ahead and swapped the 2nd and 3rd sections you pointed out, should read more clearly now.
3. I fixed that sentence that you found confusing, adding a bit more clarity from that secondary source.
4. I've addressed the various links pointed out at link checker tool, those should all be fine now.

Thanks again for the GA Review, — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all! Thanks for making it so quick and easy! Congratulations, we're done I think. Osiris (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)