Talk:A Nice Day for a Posh Wedding/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Aoba47: I'll review this article, give me a little time to read through it and I'll list any issues I find below. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

@Aoba47:

  • In the Infobox the runtime should be in minutes only per instructions so I'd probably round that up to 43 minutes.
  • In the lead, "It was written Silvio Horta and Marco Pennette", I'd probably change that to "It was written Silvio Horta & Marco Pennette". It reads that way in the TFC link, it's written that way in the season article, and would allow for consistency per MOS:AMP.
  • I am not exactly certain this as the & mark and other symbols are not used anywhere else in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plot currently exists at 424 words, it should be 400 or less per MOS:TVPLOT.
  • I'd do the same as point two in the first sentence of the production section.
  • Revised the time, but I have the same concern for the writers' names. Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pennette and Hayman were removed from the series following its renewal for a third season", does this relate to the episode itself? It seems better suited for the season 2 and 3 articles.
  • "Alongside Beckham, Fox guest-starred", for the first time in the body of the article (outside of the lead) I would probably include the full name (Rick Fox instead of just Fox).
  • "Mabius had met Beckham during a London awards ceremony;[9] when Beckham said she was a fan of Ugly Betty, Eric Mabius suggested a possible guest appearance", same here, I'd move Eric to the first mention of the name
  • Per Wikipedia:External links#EL1 "the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article", I'm not sure the Ugly Betty Wiki link should be included because it only includes plot which is already covered in this article.

I'll do a second read through before officially promoting but other than the few issues I found above this article appears to be in great shape! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments and the kind words! I believe that I have addressed everything, except for one part that I am uncertain about (i.e. addition of the "&" symbol). Aoba47 (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, I'll accept for consistency within the article. Copyvio test passes and no disambiguation links in article. Ill give it one more quick skim and complete the table below. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also running WP:AUTOED for minor fixes and WP:IABOT to keep refs from disappearing in the future. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I greatly appreciate the help, as you pointed some of my silly mistakes. The only issue I had with the "&" symbol was for consistency purposes, but I fully understand why you suggested it. Aoba47 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! IABOT should've added archives to all non-dead refs but it doesn't appear it did, I'll try running it again later. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my past experience, I have noticed that the Internet Archive does not archive all URLs for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only used it a couple of times and in my experience it doesn't archive all either, but it should still add archive links to the ones that don't already have them. Guess its got a mind of its own. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review table[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. WP:TVMOS is followed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. All refs are listed and non-dead.
2b. 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). All sources are reliable.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Copyvio test ran, passed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit wars or content disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Non-free content has fair use rationale.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images relevant to topic
7. Overall assessment. Article looks great, meets the criteria.

Closing comments[edit]

Once again the article looks great, good work! I'll be listing it momentarily! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate the review, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing is now complete. Congratulations! I hope you have a great rest of your week too! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Nice_Day_for_a_Posh_Wedding/GA1&oldid=966976039"