Talk:Grumpy Old Man/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Koopatrev (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article soon (before June 4, 2012).Koopatrev (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing now. Koopatrev (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and Images

Prose is fine, well written
Images are of good quality and clear, they are tagged with copyright statuses and has a suitable caption on

Infobox

The writers should be listed in two lines with <br /> Done by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The episode originally aired on Fox in the United States on December 11, 2011." "United States" could be linked. Done Per Wiki Manual of Style, this isn't necessary.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

"Carter is reluctant at first (since he doesn't want to leave out a six-billion dollar company), but eventually ..." Change "doesn't" to "does not". Done by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link the first "Joe" you can see to "Joe Swanson" Done by --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references

A source is needed for the first statement in that paragraph.
See this section for problems with sources. Done (change done by TBrandley (talk)) Koopatrev (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production and development

Nothing wrong so far. Done

Reception

A section is needed for reviews from critics.

References

Family Guy Wiki is not a reliable source. Done (change done by Tbrandley (talk)) Koopatrev (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this on hold until these problems are solved.

This article is going to fail if no changes/improvements are to be made by June 9, 2012, 08:48 (UTC).Koopatrev (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review (template)

Final review (sorry I'm over an hour late but that's ok) Koopatrev (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is well written.

Prose quality:

Follows MOS:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable;.:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

The "cultural references" section is still lacking some sources for some statements. In source 3 you don't really see anything that says anything about the cultural references of this episode.

3. It is broad in coverage:

Major aspects:

The section for reviews from critics in the "reception" section is still missing. However there is still a part for U.S. viewers and ratings.

Focused:

4. It is written in a neutral point of view.:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars etc:

6. Includes images, where appropriate.:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Sorry this probably has to fail, some parts are still lacking information.