Talk:The Big Bang Theory/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 08:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am quick failing this article. It is not in horrific shape but there are substantial issues with the page. A cursory glance shows {{citation needed}} tags (Production, Merchandise) and a section cleanup template (Cast and characters). The Science fiction media section contains too much fancruft (though it is not entirely without merit) and there are also issues with lack of sourcing in the "Sheldon and Amy's relationship" and "Leonard and Penny's relationship" subsections of Recurring themes and elements. The Reception section is largely out of date (e.g. prose section of U.S. standard ratings only covers up to season 7), not detailed enough and contains unjustified weasel phrases such as "Later seasons received more acclaim". I could go on but these reasons already cover too much to deal with in a GA review. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)