Talk:Basic Lupine Urology

Basic Lupine Urology 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: December 19, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comedy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Television Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 17:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Two references for the production code seems like WP:OVERKILL. I suggest removing one.
  • Done.
• Didn't find any problems with the article's lead.
• In the plot summary, change "have a motive" to "have had a motive" since the yam is already dead.
  • Done.
• I advise archiving the article's sources in case they're deleted.
  • Done. (Though the archive for source 2 seems to be acting up for me – it says it's archived, but it won't load. I'll try looking into it more over the next few days if needed.)
• No problems with images, production, or information on reception, however, remove the IMDb reference per WP:IMDB/BLP.
  • I assume this refers to the comments in the Reception section, not the IMDb link in External links, in which case – done.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• @RunningTiger123: I have added nearly all my suggestions for this article. Great job on expanding and improving it so far. Well, take a look at my suggestions, add comments, and please ping me when you have done so. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina: All suggested edits have been made. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]