GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Hello. I’m Artichoke-Boy, and I’ll be reviewing this article. This is my first GA nomination review, so please feel free to tell me if I’m doing something wrong. I will respond to any questions/comments as soon as I can.
Infobox
- Is the production number and airdate information correct?
- This episode is the sixth in Seinfeld’s second season, but the eleventh in the complete series. Is this what the “Episode no.” information on the infobox is supposed to indicate?
Introductory paragraphs
- "One of them is a statue that resembles a statue his friend George Costanza (Jason Alexander) broke when he was ten years old." might be better worded as "One of these is a statue, resembling one that his friend George Costanza (Jason Alexander) broke when he was ten years old."
Done.
- The second paragraph here needs some citations, especially on the information regarding the response to the development of Kramer.
Plot
- "Jerry is very impressed by the quality of the cleaning, however, when he and Elaine visit Rava, Jerry notices the statue and believes Ray stole it." should be reworded as "Jerry is very impressed by the quality of the cleaning; but when he and Elaine visit Rava, Jerry notices a statue with a vivid similarity to the one he inherited, and believes Ray stole it." Done.
- "He calls Kramer to check his apartment, and his suspicion is confirmed." should be changed to "He calls Kramer to check his apartment, and when he couldn’t find the statue, Jerry’s suspicion is confirmed." Done.
- Maybe I’m just nitpicking here, but I think "Jerry asks him about the statue and Ray gets mad..." should be changed to "Jerry asks him about the statue, but Ray gets offended..." Done.
- TYPO: "goest" => "goes" Done.
- "...to Ray's apartment, pretending to be a cop and steals back the statue." should be cahnged into "...to Ray's apartment, pretending to be a cop, and steals back the statue." This is just a grammatical thing. Done.
Cultural references
(This section looks fine.)
Production
- In the section’s first sentence, it says "season two." Something tells me this should be changed to "Season 2," with it being linked to its article. Done.
- "The same scene initially featured George admitting that he spied on Ray a day earlier, showing Ray pictures him in a bar." should be changed to "The same scene initially featured George admitting that he spied on Ray a day earlier, showing Ray pictures of him in a bar." Done.
- "In the original script Elaine and Rava would argue over who would be a better person, Jerry or Ray." should be changed to "In the original script, Elaine and Rava would argue over who is a better person: Jerry or Ray." Done.
Recpetion
(I don’t see anything in this section worth pointing out.)
References and External links
(Looks like everything checks out here too.)
This looks to me like Good Article material, considering that the majority of my criticisms were spelling, grammatical, and rewording-related issues.
The coverage of the article is very good without it being too long, and it has a consistently neutral point of view. It also has a good layout, and doesn’t contain a "trivia" section (those should be avoided).
Here’s a recap of the article pertaining to the official Good Article Criteria:
- 1.Well-written
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. (I made sure of the words to avoid issue.)
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct.
- 2.Factually accurate and verifiable
- (a) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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. (See "Introductory paragraphs" above. I think this is the only real issue needed to be improved on a bit.)
- (b) it contains no original research.
- 3.Broad in its coverage
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- 4.Neutrality
- 5.Stability. (No edit wars or ongoing disputes.)
On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. ---Artichoke-Boy (talk)(sign) 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I’ve took the liberty of passing this article (as of today), as it looks to meet the criteria and the necessary requirements. Any questions or comments about this should be posted here (I assume). ---Artichoke-Boy (talk)(sign) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)