Talk:Spit & Eggs

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spit & Eggs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 16, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you.
4. Copyvio Detector from GA Toolbox shows result of "Violation Possible 67.5% confidence".
5. To reduce potential for copyvio, please trim and or remove and or paraphrase all quotations so that Copyvio Detector result for all sources are each below 30 percent, at least. Right now that means 5 sources need to be addressed as far as too much quotations, which is unfortunately about half the sources cited in the article at present.
6. Please change Synopsis sect title to Plot synopsis.
7. Please expand lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, to function as standalone summary of entire article's contents. I'd say three paragraphs, with four sentences each, would be good.
8. Recommend breaking up Production sect into smaller daughter sects keeping them within parent Production sect. Perhaps daughter sects like Writing, and Casting, not sure but probably a 3rd sub sect as well is needed.
9. Production sect mixes and changes order randomly and is disorganized. Starting with paragraph beginning with A week prior to the episode's airing, Michael Ausiello received an advance screening of the episode ... the entire rest of the sect transitions back to writing. So the sect goes from Writing -> Casting -> Writing again. Need better structural organization, and better flow, throughout, somehow.
10. Reception - suggest getting rid of two daughter sects, as they're quite small. Just have Ratings info be merged into first paragraph of new sect, called Reception or Critical reception.
11. Make sure to add at least a little bit of critical commentary in addition to a couple other opinions to lede intro sect.
12. Ten (10) instances of "also" in article, try to trim these, please.
13. Four (4) uses of "however" in article, try to improve wording here and somehow remove these, please.

2. Verifiable?:

1. Checklinks tool http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Spit_%2526_Eggs shows several problems, please archive all links in the article with the Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archivedate and archiveurl fields with WP:CIT templates, as this is not much work because this article does not have many citations.
2. What is " MyFanbase.de"? Is this a reliable source that does not fail WP:RS ?
3. Please add in-line citations for asserted info in image captions.

3. Broad in coverage?: Will be better able to assess this once Production sect is organized better both for flow and organizational structure, as noted, above.

4. Neutral point of view?: Can't really assess this right now as lede intro sect needs more info on Reception. Lede intro sect actually currently has nothing on this.

5. Stable? No issues here. I inspected article edit history and article talk page history. Article is stable going back over at least one month.

6. Images?: I've performed an image review for both images, both check out fine.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Everything should be fixed now. Organization stuff is better (I think) and quotes are now taken care of. Use of transition words is cut down, and websites that I think are likely to move have been archived. Normally, MyFanbase.de would definitely not be a reliable source, but because this is an interview with the actor, I believe that it is acceptable under WP:Interviews. Let me know if you have any other comments. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 04:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Given some thought to the suggestion number 3, above, which is optional only but just to consider as a way to pay it forward ?
2. Checklinks tool http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Spit_%2526_Eggs -- shows at least one link that should be archived by Wayback Machine via WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate.
3. Copyvio Detector -- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Spit+%26+Eggs&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- shows okay result = good job here!
4. Organizational structure of article looks better.
5. Lede intro sect looks much better.
6. Great job on in-line citations.
7. Thanks for changing sect name to Plot synopsis.
8. Overall article flow is better.

That's about it for now, probably one last revisit after this one. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: That one link is taken care of. On your first comment, I thought we had already established that I do a lot of GA reviewing already and am in the final round of the GA Cup. Thanks, Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to the GA Nominator for such polite responsiveness to recommendations by GA Reviewer, above. — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)