Talk:Arrested Development/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tick list

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Comments

edit
Pass
Query
  • Images. There are three non-free images used in the article. The policy is for "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". I think that the images are being used for different reasons, and there are rationales on two, but File:Arresteddevelopmentsnoopy.gif does not have a specific rationale. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • There are Original Research concerns because there are theories and opinions being given which are not supported by reliable sources - instead the reader is expected to concur with the opinion by viewing the episodes themselves. An example is - "The show is highly intertextual (referring to other shows) and reflexive (self-referential)" - for which the reader is given a link to a Wikipedia article on an episode. Reliable sources should be used to support these statements. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fail
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. There is nothing on the show's development, characters, plot, episodes, themes, response, etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Sourcing is a serious issue. The article was demoted from FA status because of inadequate sourcing, and the sourcing has not improved since then. At times the article uses Wikipedia articles on individual episodes as sources, which is against policy. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Focus. There is excessive detail in places. The list of Notable guests is long and unexplained. There is a lot of plot detail which should be trimmed to a managable summary. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hold

edit

There is a solid article here. The writing is good, and there is a lot of information. However, it doesn't meet GA criteria. This is mainly due to an excessive amount of unnecessary detail in places, that the lead doesn't provide an adequate summary of the quite extensive contents, and that much material remains unsourced. I think it would be possible to bring the article up to scratch, though it would require some dedicated effort. Putting on hold for an initial 7 seven days to see what the nominator wishes to do. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nominator reminded that seven days is almost up and no work has been done, and no contact made. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fail

edit

There's been no response, no edits, no communication. The article has a number of issues. The sourcing issues need to be addressed before this article is renominated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply