Talk:QI/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
- There are at least four broken links.[1]
- There are two unsatisfied requests for citation, one dating back to February 2009.
- There are many external links in the body of the text. External links should only appear in the External links section.
- The QI HQ section, which is supported entirely by 4 broken external links, appears to be an advertisement.
- There are several statements like this "To date, 56 guest panellists have appeared on QI", which will date. When is "to date"? As of 2008? 2009?
- I find it difficult to believe that the only unfavourable criticism of the show has been the way it's edited.
- "Some of the material written in the forums is used in the TV series." Needs to be cited.
- "Ironically, the only series to date without a Christmas special in its run has been series C." Why is that "ironic?
- The Other media section is written as a list. It needs to be written in prose.
- Stephen Fry is sometimes referred to as "Fry" and at other times as "Stephen". The article should be consistent.
--Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried to carry out all the changes you asked for. However, I have not been able to find much in the way of criticism of QI. Do you know of any such sources? ISD (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've had a look through Newsbank, and although the majority of reviews are more or less positive, I also found this description of the show from The Independent, dated 12 September 2007: "QI is a teeth-clenching example of TV mistaking shallow cleverness for intelligence." Here is the url, although you may need a subscription. If you can't access it, but think it's worthwhile to add, I'll do that if you like. Personally I think it'll give a little balance to the criticism; it's just not credible that everybody loves the show. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)