Talk:Will Zimmerman

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 22:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Starting with the lead, I found poor prose, e.g.:

   Dunne's portrayal of Will vastly differed in the first season, while the second would introduce more darkness to the character. clumsy and almost incoherent.

   The third season shows Will in a more leadership position in the Sanctuary, and becomes instrumental in the Hollow Earth story-arc. - semi-lierate.

   The character attracted generally positive reviews, with some television critics compared the character to Stargate SG-1 character Daniel Jackson. - "with some television critics compared the character"?

   He is later recruited by Helen Magnus to join her Sanctuary team, an organization who track down several abnormals around the world and give them refuge at one of their bases, and become her new protégé.

   and several of his original ideas ended in the finale product, - I think you mean final?

   The character and Dunne's portrayal was met with generally positive reviews. Appalling grammar.

   I don't need to look at any more before letting you know that this fails the criteria of "reasonably well written". Get it copy-edited and peer reviewed before renominating.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The majority of references come from the TV series so I cannot check them. I count two interviews and two news stories, also, lists from award sites, you should make more effort to find good third party references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Hard to say, is the series ongoing? The Conceptual section appears to contain a lot of trivia, it all reads like a bad fan-site.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A little too much like a fan-site. This is an encyclopaedia.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Two images used with suitable licenses and captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I shall not be listing this as it needs to be rewritten in good plain English and an encyclopaedic manner with more third party WP:RS. Please familiarise yourself with the good article criteria, get it copy-edited, take it to peer review before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]