Talk:In Excelsis Deo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article In Excelsis Deo has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
November 18, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

[edit] Evaluation for GA

In Excelsis Deo
SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality A A A A
Neutrality A A A A
Writing A A A A
Sources B B B
Citations B B B
00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


There is no problem with the pictures. The writing is good. Neutral point of view has been achieved as well, however, you don't need the word "obviously" - I removed it myself. A few paragraphs are missing citations. It would be nice if there were more sources.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review. Are you talking about paragraphs in the "Plot"-section? The reason why this is not sourced is that here the source is simply the episode, following WP:EPISODE#Reliable_sources. As for the Sorkin-Cleveland argument, there's only one source here because the whole exchange can be found in The West Wing Episode Guide. Lampman 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Good reason. Passed.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article comments

I'm not a party of the nomination process and am just a neutral observer but I believe the article is quite adequate. Nevertheless, I doubt if it provides enough information to be considered a good article. How about explaining how the episode stands in relation to the other episodes in the season? What other information can be obtained from this article that would not be available from viewing the episode? Zuracech lordum 15:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)