This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The only sugguestion I have is in the production section. Paragraph three begins stating: "An actual peacock was featured here." I think it would sound better if you start it by stating "During the episode Jack Donaghy inherits Argus, Don Geiss's beloved pet peacock." then state an actual peacock was used, then speak about the feathers hitting her face and puppeteers being used. It's up to you how you would like to word it of course.
In the reception section italics need to be added to IGN and Aol's TV Squad
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
No #:::
Dablinks so that's fine.
Checklinks reveals that ref numbers 10 and 13 change domain. Don't think that's even a problem though is it as I think that website always comes up on the checker, you can strike the comment if you think the same.
The Star-Ledger's publisher is missing from ref 20. The same for Paste's publisher in 21.
Yeah, the IGN sources always function like that. Well, the thing is that if I add the publisher to those two refs. then I got to do with all of them, and I'd rather not. --
ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
B.
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):
The only image used has all the correct tags and is already verified.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
So not much to do really as it was a well written article, an interesting read for the casual reader. Informative and you didn't go off the subject. Page formatted really well. So yes, it's nearly there now and it shall be passed soon no doubt.
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The only sugguestion I have is in the production section. Paragraph three begins stating: "An actual peacock was featured here." I think it would sound better if you start it by stating "During the episode Jack Donaghy inherits Argus, Don Geiss's beloved pet peacock." then state an actual peacock was used, then speak about the feathers hitting her face and puppeteers being used. It's up to you how you would like to word it of course.
In the reception section italics need to be added to IGN and Aol's TV Squad
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
No #:::
Dablinks so that's fine.
Checklinks reveals that ref numbers 10 and 13 change domain. Don't think that's even a problem though is it as I think that website always comes up on the checker, you can strike the comment if you think the same.
The Star-Ledger's publisher is missing from ref 20. The same for Paste's publisher in 21.
Yeah, the IGN sources always function like that. Well, the thing is that if I add the publisher to those two refs. then I got to do with all of them, and I'd rather not. --
ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)reply
B.
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):
The only image used has all the correct tags and is already verified.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
So not much to do really as it was a well written article, an interesting read for the casual reader. Informative and you didn't go off the subject. Page formatted really well. So yes, it's nearly there now and it shall be passed soon no doubt.