Talk:Lord of the Pi's

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lord of the Pi's/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review on Hold

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. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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.	Per Copyvio Detector, located in link in GA Toolbox at top right of this page, there is a rating of Violation Possible. There are seven (7) sources cited that are over thirty percent (30) confidence. Please trim and/or remove and/or paraphrase quotations to get all these down below 30. I'll recheck back here upon my reevaluation of the article. Please change Synopsis to Plot synopsis. Consider retitling sect to Critical reception, and not having those daughter subsects. Instead, merge Ratings info into first paragraph of that sect, as it's quite small for its own tiny sub sect.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Please expand lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, to fully function as a good standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Recommend at least three paragraphs of at least four sentences each.
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.	Please add in-line citations for factual assertions made in the captions of the images.
	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).	GA Toolbox, above right on this page, for External Links, shows several problems. Please use Wayback Machine of the Internet Archive to archive all links (as it's a shorter article) with WP:CIT citation fields archivedate and archiveurl.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article is reliant primarily upon secondary sources. No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage and scope, covering the main aspects of the topic. No issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good overall focus and structure to the article. No issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	"The episode received a polarized reaction from television critics." -- More needed in the lede intro sect on this info. What was the polarized reaction? Why? From which critics and/or which publications?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Going back to August 2015, at least, article and talk page are stable upon my inspection of respective histories.
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.	Checked all images and all check out okay on their respective image pages upon my image review.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I uploaded this image to Commons as a cropped version of one you have in the article -- I suggest it is a bit more flattering to the subject than the one you have in the article at present -- and might I also suggest it could perhaps be a better image to use in the infobox of the article about the subject herself, as well.
	7. Overall assessment.	Placed as GA on Hold for Seven Day period of time. — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: Thank you for the extensive review! I believe I have responded to all comments now. The quotes are now below 30%. I expanded the lead and archived more of the links this time (I know these websites so I know which links are likely to disappear sometime). I also changed the picture of Hearst. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Lord_of_the_Pi%27s - shows all links check out okay, good job !
2. Copyvio Detector tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Lord of the Pi's&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - result = "Violation Unlikely 29.1% confidence" = GREAT JOB HERE, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE, EXCELLENT WORK !!!
3. Thanks for changing Synopsis to Plot synopsis, looks better that way.
4. Reception sect looks much better, thank you.
5. Per WP:LEADCITE, you can remove those citations from the lede intro sect, IFF same factual assertions appear later in article body text.
6. Thank you for that image change to the cropped image, it looks much better. Might I suggest changing the infobox image for that subject, in the article about the subject, to that image, as well? It might look more flattering than the current portrayal in her infobox, what do you think?
7. "The episode received a polarized reaction from television critics." -- More needed in the lede intro sect on this info. What was the polarized reaction? Why? From which critics and/or which publications? -- upon revisiting, this looks MUCH better, thank you!

A few minor quibbles holding this one up, then it should be fine. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: The two things you mentioned should be fixed now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 04:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to GA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to GA Reviewer recommendations. — Cirt (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)