Talk:The Haunted Mask (Goosebumps episode)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Any point I raise is open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   These are my edits. Any of them can be revised/reverted if you do not like them.

   I like them. My only change was correcting a minor typo. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   Oh, gosh. Thanks for catching that... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

   The source cited (#8) for the VHS release date only says the VHS "made its home video debut last week". I suggest adding source #9 to this sentence as well, since it gives the specific date.

   Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   "in 1994, Margaret Loesch, formerly the CEO of Fox Kids," - according to her article, she was still the CEO in 1994. I suggest revising this to "then-CEO", "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time", or some other wording that indicates she wasn't a former CEO in 1994.

   Changed to "the CEO of Fox Kids at the time". Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   no cocnern

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   no concern

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   no concern. AGF for the print/subscription sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I remember the initial broadcast being during primetime, but that may have been a local decision. This detail isn't necessary to pass GA, but it might be something to look into if you plan to improve the article further.

   Added. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

   Excellent! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   no concern

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   no concern

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   no concern

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are a few points under 1A that I don't feel comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one looks pretty good. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. I made the relevant changes. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Everything looks good here. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)