Talk:Arrested Development/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close as fail. No edits, no response. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

Pass

Article is stable, there are no edit wars. However, while looking at the history I noted that the article hasn't changed much since Oct 2009 when it was demoted from FA status due to sourcing concerns. Those concerns have not been addressed which is not encouraging. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Captions are appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose. There are occasional moments where the text could be clearer, but on the whole the prose is clear and readable - at time engaging and informative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MoS - apart from Lead. The layout, etc are appropriate. The list of Notable guests would fall under Long sequences, which is an appropriate use of a list. Though the content of that list will fall foul of 3B - "Focused", as the encyclopaedic value of the contents is questionable. Added to which the list is entirely unsourced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is broad and detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]