Talk:Daredevil season 2/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jujutsuan (talk · contribs) 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at first glance. Will begin a more detailed review now.

re}} | talk | contribs) 19:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've evaluated everything but the reliability of the sources. This article looks to be in very good shape so far, after I did some minor copy-editing.
re}} | talk | contribs) 20:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for doing this for us @Jujutsuan: I've just gone through and done a c/e myself, cutting down all those quotes so that we don't have so many blockquotes. We probably should have done that before nominating anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @
re}} | talk | contribs) 22:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh wait, I misinterpreted your edit. You meant you shortened the quotes, not just reformatted. Hmm... I actually enjoyed reading through them. I know WP isn't a
re}} | talk | contribs) 22:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Stylistically, editors of the MCU-related articles try to avoid an over abundance of block quotes in the prose. And the reason for that is we should be paraphrasing to avoid
WP:COPYVIO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
OK. I guess if anyone really wants the firsthand account they can go to the sources. This is a moot point, then. Only problem left to solve is the ref reliability.
re}} | talk | contribs) 23:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (
    lists
    )
    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to
    reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy
    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )
    :

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

This article's references don't all support the content. Just at first glance,

re}} | talk | contribs) 23:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I've fixed the ref sourcing you mentioned. If you had any other specific complaints regarding the refs, the rest should be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I agree; the rest of the refs look way too specific to be unreliable, and they're from decent sources. I'll go ahead and pass this nom now.
re}} | talk | contribs) 23:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]



Congratulations

re}} | talk | contribs) 00:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks. Appreciate the review! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]