Talk:The Curse of Frank Black/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grapple, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow shortly. Thanks in advance for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A first pass shows no significant issues, though I made a few tweaks for grammar and switched one "post" to "mail" to make it more Yank-friendly. Feel free to revert if you disagree with any of these. Checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an issue for the GA criteria, but wanted to point out that the parameter "director=Thomas J. Wright, et al." isn't showing up for the Second Season notes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review on this one, and the fixes made. Managed to figure out why the |director= field wasn't working; it was using a similar but different template. I remember copying the code from another article of mine so I'm now off to hunt for where it came from to fix it there too. GRAPPLE X 02:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A check of Google and Google Books doesn't turn up any significant information not already included.
	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.
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.	N/A
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	N/A
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA--I see very little to quibble with here.