Talk:Thirty-Eight Snub/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Should probably stop reviewing this series if I'm going to watch it. Ah well, I'll forget this by the time I get as far as this one, I imagine.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Just a few wee fixes to be made.
   Ray Campbell in his first recurring appearance as Gus' henchman Tyrus Kitt. -> would imply that Campbell had several recurring roles, rather than playing one recurring character. Try "The first appearance by Ray Campbell in the recurring role of Gus' henchman Tyrus Kitt", or words to that effect.
   "an employee provided her a base tester" -> should this be 'bass tester', as in something that tests out the speaker's lower frequencies?
   "Thirty-Eight Snub" received a 0.9 rating among viewers between ages 18 and 49." -> This means that 0.9% of that age bracket watched the episode, doesn't it? I'd add that explanation in, especially since the paragraph is quite short and a little relevant padding wouldn't hurt.
   "and he found the subplot with Hank and Marie because Hank was so unsympathetic." -> Seems like something's missing here. I assume there's meant to be something between "Marie" and "because"?

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

   MOS is grand. I'm wondering if it's maybe a good idea to sort the 'Production' section into subsections, though, given the length of it. Pre-production, production and post-production are the usual breaks but you could break it down however you feel is best.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   No problems with your sourcing and citations at all.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope is just right.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutrality is fine.

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:

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

   Images are used appropriately and the two NFC files are tagged with solid rationales. I'm wondering if you might want to omit the first one and just lead with the crane shot - it's striking, identifies the episode due to its uniqueness, and you can continue to refer to it if it's in the infobox. Using both won't hinder this GAN but if you want to take this to FAC then non-free media is scrutinised a lot harder, it might be worth thinking about if you go down that road.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There's only a handful of minor 1A fixes needing done, and I'm confident enough that they'll be sorted quickly to just go ahead and pass this article now. Anything else mentioned is mostly considerations for the future, not actual issues with the article, so two minutes fixing those 1A niggles is all that's needed. Well done! GRAPPLE X 03:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)