Talk:African Queens (TV series)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 14:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. Review will be coming up shortly. Yeah, unfortunately, I'm going to have to quickfail this article. Other than what Gerard has said, here are some things you can do to improve the article: Overall, the article lacks a lot of things, and per the GACR, it will have to be quickfailed. If you need examples of articles to reference while improving African Queens, Sea Monsters (TV series) and TransGeneration are two similar articles. There are also other articles that exist, just check WP:GA. Good luck! Spinixster  (chat!)  01:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reject while it contains Generally Unreliable sources (that the creator edit-wars back in) and WP:SYNTH (references to scientific reports that are not about the TV series) - violating WP:GACR 2.b and 2.c. This makes the sections of the article using these sources come across as a personal essay attempting to push a social viewpoint, not an encyclopedia article based solidly on verifiable reliable sources. A stylistic issue is that there's a lot of puffery of the sources themselves in wiki voice, as if the writer knows it's a stretch - it reads like the writer is cobbling together opinions in a synthesis - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * add an image of the logo or poster in the infobox (criteria 6). Considering that the two seasons have different names, a poster would not be the best option, but since the series is called "African Queens", you can probably crop out the "Nijinga" from the logo of the first season, upload it with the correct use rationale, and put it in the infobox.
 * The Summary section is usually where the summary of the show goes, but I see that the first paragraph seems to lean more into Development/Production. You should move it there.
 * Speaking of Development/Production, there isn't a Development or Production section in the article. I'd recommend adding one, since it broadens the coverage of the article (criteria 3). Some things you can include are:
 * where the idea of the show came from (which is already said in the aforementioned paragraph)
 * production on the first and section season (when did it start filming, where was it filmed, how was the casting, etc.)
 * Other things you can add are:
 * in the release section: Promotion (was the show advertised somewhere, were there any preview screenings,...)
 * in the reception section: Awards and nominations (if the show was nominated/won an award) and Ratings (how many people watched the show)
 * I also noticed the episode summaries are quite thin. You can expand them.