Jump to content

Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Any point I raise is open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    These are my edits. Any of them can be revised/reverted if you do not like them.
    I like them. My only change was correcting a minor typo. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, gosh. Thanks for catching that... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The source cited (#8) for the VHS release date only says the VHS "made its home video debut last week". I suggest adding source #9 to this sentence as well, since it gives the specific date.
    Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "in 1994, Margaret Loesch, formerly the CEO of Fox Kids," - according to her article, she was still the CEO in 1994. I suggest revising this to "then-CEO", "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time", or some other wording that indicates she wasn't a former CEO in 1994.
    Changed to "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time". Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no cocnern
  2. 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:
    no concern
    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:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    no concern. AGF for the print/subscription sources.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I remember the initial broadcast being during primetime, but that may have been a local decision. This detail isn't necessary to pass GA, but it might be something to look into if you plan to improve the article further.
    Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    no concern
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    no concern
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    There are a few points under 1A that I don't feel comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one looks pretty good. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article. I made the relevant changes. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good here. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]