Talk:Parents Television and Media Council/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
After failing the first time, I'm trying again based on the advice of the initial evaluator. This time, I've added some books as sources, dealt with the citation format and dead links issues, and updated/expanded the content. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments: Recent stability and images look fine, except Steve Allen needs a caption to explain who he is. No free pictures of Bozell, I take it? Overall, appears to be a reasonable read. I'll be looking through it with a sharper pen later. Do make sure the lead summarizes the contents of the article, and neither leaves important things out nor is the sole source of anything. References look like they could stand to have more info added in some cases, but that's just my first impression. Again, more detail forthcoming later. Jclemens (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no free images of Bozell anywhere. And I'll fix the lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, before I get into any of the nitty-gritty stuff, I think the article needs to be reorganized:

• Foundation and Leadership sections should probably be merged and placed as the first section after the lead.
• Overall, I think the article would flow better if the publications sections was moved to the end.

As far as initial review:

• References use inconsistent date formatting. Pick one format for date, and one format for accessdate--they don't have to be the same format, but every reference should use the same format(s) for those two dates.
• Each online reference should have an accessdate.
• Some of the references are circular links (#8 "Parents Television Council 2006", for example) and need to be fixed.
• The see also section seems to editorialize in a few places. How much of that is necessary?

Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)  Done Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Eh, watch WP:OVERLINK. Do website, parenting, traffic light, and violence really need to be linked? Also, go over the article with a fine toothed comb and WP:AVOID. Scare quotes around controversy in Advertising section need to go. How do the last 3 external links meet WP:EL?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Go over the text again, and make sure that when a conclusion is drawn, the associated reference is clearly understood (e.g., attached to that sentence)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Foundation and leadership sections need to be combined--they're the same topic, and separating them breaks up the logical flow of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Balanced enough

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   fine.

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):

   More images would be helpful.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Continued ON HOLD. There's a lot of work to be done here--I'll review it again 8/31 and see how it's progressed. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done - but could you point out where there might be problems with original research? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• There's still a lot of WP:OVERLINK: homosexuality, fuck, website, violence, swimsuit, and restaurant still jump out at me.
  • Hardee's is wikilinked twice in the advertising section.
• Here's a few sentences which make uncited assertions which could be construed as OR. The subsequent citations probably cover most of these, but each significant and separate fact should have a citation, even if that citation is repeated in the next sentence.
  • "In October 2003, the FCC decided not to fine NBC because Bono's obscenity was ruled as fleeting and not describing sexual or excretory functions, the FCC's standard for fining a network for indecency."
  • "The infamous halftime show paved way for the PTC to launch five more FCC complaint drives... " Did it? The citation at the end of that sentence is to the objectionable content mentioned in the next clause.
  • "On January 25, 2008, the FCC proposed an estimated $1.4 million fine against the ABC network for nudity in an episode of the police drama NYPD Blue aired on February 25, 2003. The episode in question, "Nude Awakening", aired at 9:00 P.M. in the Central and Mountain Time Zones in the United States, thus violating FCC indecency regulation that subjects networks to fines from complaints from indecent programs aired between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. in the day; however, the episode aired at 10 P.M. in the Pacific and Eastern zones." That whole, multiple-sentence assertion of fact is uncited, and the citation to the next sentence doesn't support the detailed assertions made in this section, such as the timezones in which the episode was shown.
• That's just for starters, really. Please use those as examples and go through the article to eliminate similar uncited sentences--preferably by finding sources that back up your assertions. I don't believe any of these are outright false, but they do need good citations all around. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Passing per improvements. There's still a long way to go for this to get to FA--Standardize the references the rest of the way, for starters. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)