Talk:Chuck Woolery: Naturally Stoned

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chuck Woolery: Naturally Stoned/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'll be offline over the weekend, so I won't be able to respond to any comments until Monday. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 Wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   Lead

   The second sentence is clunky. I suggest "Six episodes aired on GSN between June 15, 2003 and July 27, 2003.", but there are other ways to fix it.

    Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   "The show proved to be ill-fated as it placed..." - wordy. I suggest simply "The show placed..."

    Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Format

   no concerns

   Production

   "The series green-lit " - is Green-light a verb? I usually hear "was green-lit", but I'll defer to your judgment here.

    Added "was" --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   "The series was also GSN's first attempt..." I don't think also is needed here.

    Removed --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   "Woolery himself was at first..." himself isn't needed.

    Removed --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Please like the Osbournes and Anna Nicole Smith to the articles for their reality shows.

    Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Episodes

   no concerns

   Reception

   "a similar series that aired on GSN several years later" - please specify the year

    Added --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   I think the CNN quote should come last, since it was made well after the others.

   Moved to the end of the paragraph--Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Lingo should be italicized in O'Dell's quote

    Done --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   I don't think the "Reality Stinks" section head is needed for the Babar quote.

    Removed --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   References

   You can add this link for the book. The preview contains the page cited in the article.

    Added --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

   no concern

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:

   Source 11 has an access date of 2008. In the (unlikely) event that is not a typo, something more current will be needed for the claim the show has "never been released" on home media.

   This was a typo; I just added that access date last night. I have amended the issue. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   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:

   no concern

   C. It contains no original research:

   no concern

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig returned a high result (40ish percent) for one source, but it was due to properly attributed quotes. No concern.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Do any sources say when the episodes were filmed? The only dates given in the article are for greenlighting and airing.

   Not that I can tell. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Thanks for checking.

   How did the show air in relation to Lingo? Did they air back-to-back? Were the game episodes paired with the reality episodes that featured behind the scenes information?

   It would have made sense to me if they aired in the same block, but I can't find anything that details the exact programming schedule or how the two aired in relation. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   no concern

4. Is it neutral?

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

   no concern

5. Is it stable?

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

   no concern

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:

   no concern

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

   image needs a caption and WP:ALTTEXT

   I've been told in the past that captions for show logos/title cards are unnecessary (none of my other GAs or FAs have them). I have added the ALT text though. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   That works for me.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Argento Surfer: Now I believe I'm done everything addressed so far. Thanks again. Let me know if you need anything else. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Notes are finished. Pass pending responses. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   @Argento Surfer: Done final responses. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

   Nice work - easy pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)