Talk:On Patrol: Live/GA1
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this nomination—I'll take up to a week to get round to it. This review will be used for Wikicup points. Please consider reviewing an article yourself—the backlog is long, and the WP:GAN list promotes nominators with a good reviewing score. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- see #Spotchecks below
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- see #Spotchecks below
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- The episode lists are rather long and dominate the article. Is there any way to spin them out or collapse them?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- A rather good article. Just a question regarding criterion 3b), and this should be ready to go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Thank you for the review! I've thought the same thing about the list of episodes. I just haven't split it yet because MOS:TVSPLIT says it should be around 50-60kb (or 50-60 episodes with summaries) before splitting. The current readable prose size however, is only at 12kb, and since there are no episode summaries its safe to assume that is pretty accurate. If you think it still needs split, I'd be more than happy to! Just thought I'd ask first. Thank you, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Spotchecks
- 7 fine
- 19 fine
- 33 AGF
- 72 url dead, but good
Spotchecks done on statistics as well.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.