Talk:90210 season 3/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The tense throughout changes almost randomly between past and present.

   Gillian Zinser, who plays surfer chick Ivy Sullivan, was promoted to series regular for the third season of the series "series" - "series"

   Series regular Rob Estes and special guest star Jennie Garth both announced they would not return to the series. "series" - "series"

   Failure to reach an agreement in contract negotiations have been cited as a factor in Estes' departure, but apparently leaves on good terms with the producers and the network - really this is very badly written.

   The producers said they were ultimately willing to let them go as they are "trying to establish a separate identity for the new show," and want to focus on the younger cast members and not those who starred in the original 90210 and Melrose Place Change of tense within sentence.

   The whole article is strewn with these elementary errors of basic grammar.

   The lead does not even attempt to summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The ratings references are a wordpress blog.

   TV by numbers looks like a fanzine, try checking out article in better press sources.

   TVline looks like a rehash of press releases, again not a good source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Reception section is rather thin on critical comment.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No real analysis of the series is present

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One image used with suitable FUR

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fails primarily on its extremely poor prose, which is going to take some time to address. Please get it copy-edited into good plain English. Please familiarise yourself with the good article criteria, and after copy-edit take it to WP:PR before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.