Talk:Mole Hunt/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Plot summary, "...he is called into his mother and boss Malory", is "office" missing in the sentence? At the moment, the sentence reads odd. In the Production section, "In order to create consistency between the separate animators, the artists takes photographs of each actor and utilize Adobe Illustrator to trace over them as a base for each actor's character", do you mean ---> "In order to create consistency between the separate animators, the artists take photographs of each actor and utilize Adobe Illustrator to trace over them as a base for each actor's character"?

    Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   You might want to have a consistency with "season five" and "season 5". In the Reception section, the Brian Lowry review, the two hyphens should be changed to a spaced en-dash or unspace em-dash, for more on that go here.

    Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Not that good.

   Let me just address this first. This has actually been taken care of (I believe) through a calm and civil discussion located here and here. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

   As long as it resolved, then there's no problem. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Archer pilot.jpg needs a lower resolution.

    Done The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the concerns above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! :) The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 21:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you to SuperFlash for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! :) The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 22:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)