Talk:PTV (Family Guy)/GA1

GA Review

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

Introduction

Ok...I'm going to review your article today! Generally, as a member of WP:SIMPSONS, I'm more active at nominating articles rather than reviewing them. Right. So... I usually start by breaking the entire article down into sections, and then individually reviewing this section. A common method, this allows closer scrutiny and a chance to focus on the smaller aspects of WP:MOS. Then, to view the structure, I will take a look at the overarching quality of the article and determine whether this article passes the WP:GAN criteria or not. Cheers, I'^mperator 22:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Checklist

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:

   Quite a few grammar mistakes, such as On which he broadcasts classic shows unedited, as well as original programming, such as Cheeky Bastard, Midnight Q, Dogs Humping and The Peter Griffin Side-Boob Hour., still are not fixed.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   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 edit war or content dispute:

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, a great article. However, to get it into FA shape, you'll probably have to do some copyediting for grammar, and expansion on the Reception section. Nice work!

Lead

• Nothing really wrong here; all looks good. Few grammar mistakes involving commas, though, in the first paragraph. Look closely at the last two sentences.

Plot

• No real quality problems, though there are a few grammar mistakes which I'll list below:
• On which he broadcasts classic shows in their original, unedited versions... is a run-on.
• I've fixed a few of the structural problems and reworded some of the things which I felt could use it.

Production and Theme

• This might just be my opinion, but it seems like the "theme" subsection of the production section should be merged into the Cultural References section.
• Another general comment about this section: could you possibly expand the production bit? For example, just from the first reference [1], I could see quite a bit of detail being added.

Cultural references

• See above (Merge with Theme section and expand per refs)

Reception

• Can't really find anything wrong here; nice work!

General Notes

• Overall, a really nice article, though it does have a few flaws.
• The grammar is just about perfect (I've fixed most of the them, but I decided to leave that one above for you to fix), as is the wording.
• However, as a result of the concerns with the Production/Theme/Cultural references section, I'm afraid I'm going to have to put it on hold.
  • It shouldn't take long to fix those errors and to expand the section. Try to research a bit more and add more detail, and it'll be fine. It probably won't even take the entire week. When you're done, just give me a shout on my talk page. Cheers, I'^mperator 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, first of all, thanks for the review and for calling my grammar near-perfect. Second, I am currently editing from a library in Sweden (they have a really strange keypad; look Å). Anyhow, as I am on my vacation, I was wondering if I could wait until Monday (when I return) to fix your comments. Thanks.--Music26/11 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and you're welcome. :D And, yeah, that's fine; I'll wait. Cheers, I'^mperator 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns have been taken care off.--Music26/11 09:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I couldn't find any info in the ref that wasn't already in the article.--Music26/11 12:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)