# Talk:Leave It to Beaver (Veronica Mars)

Image:VM 1x22 LItB 836.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leave It to Beaver (Veronica Mars)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry this took so long, I'll try to get my commentary up today so this can end somewhat sooner than it sat on GAN. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
Bare URL has to be formatted
Date format.  Pick one and stick to it.
Ref 10; you're using the wrong template- this should be cite news, with the Roanoke Times given as the newspaper, whoever owns them as the publisher, and the Detroit Free Press as the agency
What is Give me my Remote, and why is it a WP:RS?
Dab Links
Two- GHB and Michael Fields.
Media
Non-free rationale needs strengthening for the infobox image.  My inclination is that a suitable rationale can be written, but what you have now is far too boilerplate
Other image is fine
Thanks for the comments (and for reviewing)! I have gone through and tried to fix the issues raised thus far. I'm not too sure about the rationale of the infobox image, but I've given it a go. Also, I didn't think that GMMR was reliable, and that's why I didn't bother to format it. It's been removed. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Characters should probably be referred to by first and last name on first mention- see FA's What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural) and Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
"praised Thomas's use" is s's a regional thing?  Normal practice is to omit the second s in such situations.
WP:LEAD- the lead is not supposed to contain information only found there. The third paragraph might be better suited for a background section.
The plot section reads as completely disorganised.  Further, as someone who never watched this show, I have no idea what is going on. I hate to take you back to the same thing, but look at "Once More...". Background sections can be controversial, but since you're describing the end of a year's plot here, you need something that doesn't throw the reader in the deep end.
First time you use a dollar sign, link it like this: $; because there are many, many dollars out there.
"found the finale to be "breathlessly paced"." Duplicate citations after every quote, please.  (Though you'll get in trouble more for this at FAC, it should still be done.)

Honestly the big issue is that this article is written too heavily towards the demographic that have seen the prior 21 episodes, and leaves those who haven't out in the cold.  Courcelles 02:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a background section (while half-asleep), so hopefully it has made things a lot clearer. If any inconsistencies have arisen please let me know. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done.  It all makes much more sense now :)   Passed, though I'll offer the advice that you not rush to take this to FAC; at a minimum the prose would need ironing out and the reception section expanded; it does meet the GA criteria. Courcelles 04:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leave It to Beaver (Veronica Mars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306041611/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092904_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=092904_04
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)