Talk:The Legend of Ruby Sunday

The Legend of Ruby Sunday is currently a Television good article nominee. Nominated by TheDoctorWho (talk) at 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Note: Co-nominated with User:OlifanofmrTennant

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated B-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Doctor Who Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Doctor WhoWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Doctor WhoTemplate:WikiProject Doctor WhoDoctor Who Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wik.ipedia.Pro 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.TelevisionWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision 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 (assessed as Low-importance). Science Fiction Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wik.ipedia.Pro. 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 FictionWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing  : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Disney Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Nominator: TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) 07:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take this one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it 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 (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: