Talk:The Equation

The Equation 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: February 1, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Television: Episode coverage GA‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Science Fiction GA‑class Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Equation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 10:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to conduct the review of this article. I have a vague recollection of this episode. Probably if Community had started a year earlier, I would have remembered it better for having one of their cast in it! Anyway, I'll add notes as I come across them. Miyagawa (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More an MOS than a Good Article requirement, but you don't need to add links in image captions that you've already included in the article text. So you should remove the link to Gillian Jacobs underneath her image.
Themes and analysis: The first sentence needs a citation directly after it as it contains a quote. I presume it'll just be a repeat of citation #8.
Ratings: "as it was the series' highest rating since the season's second episode" - perhaps worth a slight reword as I wasn't sure on first readthrough whether you were referring to Fringe or House.
Reviews: Could you link "John Scott" to the appropriate subsection on the list of Fringe characters?
Reviews: Delink the second link to The Same Old Story.

Otherwise nothing really stands out as an issue, all the references are formatted in a similar manner and each meet the notability guildines. You've even formatted the A.V. Club with italics which is often missed. All good. Nice job! Miyagawa (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done done and done. Thanks so much for the review! Ruby 2010/2013 04:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's run through the template then:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

So all good. Nice job, happy to pass this one as a GA. Miyagawa (talk) 10:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]