Sex Ed (The Office) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 20, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 11:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Gen Quon, I'll be happy to take this one. Comments to follow shortly. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this looks good on first pass; I'll move on to the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:12, 20 October 2013 (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. | Spotchecks and Copyvio Detector show no issues with copyright in prose. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A bit more information about Nate would be helpful, but not necessary for passage, I think (not a main aspect). | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sex Ed (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sex Ed (The Office) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 20, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 11:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Gen Quon, I'll be happy to take this one. Comments to follow shortly. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, this looks good on first pass; I'll move on to the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:12, 20 October 2013 (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. | Spotchecks and Copyvio Detector show no issues with copyright in prose. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A bit more information about Nate would be helpful, but not necessary for passage, I think (not a main aspect). | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sex Ed (The Office). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)