Jump to content

Talk:Grumpy Old Man: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Correct subtopic
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
{{WikiProject Television|episode-coverage=Yes|class=Start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Television|episode-coverage=Yes|class=Start|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{GA nominee|14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)|nominator=[[Special:Contributions/116.49.196.163|116.49.196.163]] ([[User talk:116.49.196.163|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Episodes|status=onreview|note=}}
{{GA nominee|14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)|nominator=[[Special:Contributions/116.49.196.163|116.49.196.163]] ([[User talk:116.49.196.163|talk]])|page=1|subtopic=Episodes|status=onhold|note=}}


== Grumpy Old Man (episode) ==
== Grumpy Old Man (episode) ==

Revision as of 08:50, 2 June 2012

Grumpy Old Man (episode)

Shouldn't this be listed as an episode (Or Family Guy episode)? I was directed here from Victor Meldrew, which describes the grumpy old man archetype.Magicwalltree (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grumpy Old Man/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Koopatrev (talk · contribs) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article soon (before June 4, 2012).Koopatrev (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing now. Koopatrev (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and Images

  • Prose is fine, well written
  • Images are of good quality and clear, they are tagged with copyright statuses and has a suitable caption on

Infobox

Lead

Plot

Cultural references

Production and development

Nothing wrong so far.  Done

Reception

  • A section is needed for reviews from critics.

References

I'm going to put this on hold until these problems are solved.

This article is going to fail if no changes/improvements are to be made by June 9, 2012, 08:48 (UTC).Koopatrev (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review (template)

Final review (sorry I'm over an hour late but that's ok) Koopatrev (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is well written.

Prose quality:
Follows MOS:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable;.:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:
The "cultural references" section is still lacking some sources for some statements. In source 3 you don't really see anything that says anything about the cultural references of this episode.

3. It is broad in coverage:

Major aspects:

The section for reviews from critics in the "reception" section is still missing. However there is still a part for U.S. viewers and ratings.

Focused:

4. It is written in a neutral point of view.:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars etc:

6. Includes images, where appropriate.:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: Sorry this probably has to fail, some parts are still lacking information.