Talk:Hugo (franchise)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cabe6403 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose doesn't read very well. It took me a good three attempts to understand this massive sentence:
 * Sølvason's small Danish company SilverRock Productions, later turned into Copenhagen-based[6] Interactive Television Entertainment (ITE) ApS in 1991,[7] developed both the character of Hugo and the designated custom-built computer hardware system ITE 3000 (based on two Amiga 3000 computers plus a new audio control system MIDI sampler, the DTMF system and some other extra hardware, and reportedly costing $100,000 to make[8]), which converted telephone signals into remotely control the characters in the game and allow the interaction of the audience and the TV action without delay.
 * This reads poorly: Hugo, a 300-year-old and one-meter tall[15] troll character, was imagined by Mortensen while he was biking to his grandmother[15] from Hellerup to Gladsaxe in the spring of 1990. Hugo originally supposed to be called Max, but the producer of Eleva2ren,[15] John Berger, insisted on the name Hugo, forcing ITE to change the name, logo and make everything about one week before the premiere.
 * In mid-200s, in a science fiction reboot Agent Hugo, Hugo became a futuristic - Elementary typos exist in numerous places.
 * Niels Krogh Mortensen and his brother Lars directed more than 30 Hugo games that sold more than 10 million copies,[12] including over three million in Germany alone - Ambiguous statement due to poor prose.
 * Also produced were licensed food.. - Don't start a section with "Also".
 * Non-Danish merchandise was generally mostly different in various countries - what?
 * In 1992, 25% of the Spanish population tuned in to watch Hugo, a viewing figure that has remained unsurpassed by 1994 - Poor writing.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I'm seeing a number of unsourced statements including:
 * The entire first sentence of Content and History which makes numerous statements.
 * The show's original launch in Germany had the biggest billboard campaign in the country's since the one by Malboro. - Completely unsourced as far as I can tell.
 * In Israel, Hugo was featured on big posters all over Jerusalem to help children learn the dangers of electricity, and was also used to help rehabilitate ill children in Chile and Spain. In South Africa, a TV station asked if ITE could remove horns in all animations for all games, as their viewers where very superstitious and believed that Hugo would appear as a demon from the local belief and so Hugo never aired there. The horns of Hugo also caused some problems in the Middle East.  - A number of unsourced statements.
 * As of November 2012, the new film (by Krea Medie) is currently set for an early 2015 release but it is still only at the writing stage of the development. - Unsourced.
 * A number of dead links: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Hugo_(franchise)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It's broad but it's fairly rambling and incoherent. Definately not focused
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * In 2002, Sølvason was forced to sell all of ITE to the venture capital company Olicom A/S for only DKK5 million,[39][40] having lost an earlier offer of DKK80 million in 2000 due to a 10-minute fax delay by adviser Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance division, based on a very unprofessional handling of the case by Arthur Andersen - Hardly NPOV here.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Definately needs more images for an article about a media franchise and character
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm failing this article as the prose needs serious rewriting, I'm talking about an entire overhall. It reads very poorly, almost like a machine translation. There's too many instances to point them all out and, doing so, would result in a very hacked together article. It would be much better and likely quicker to rewrite from scratch (without the NPOV issues). Also, there are plenty of unsourced statements throughout the article. It's not focus, rambles on and is actually very difficult to read. I simply do not believe this article can reach GA status within 7 days. Take your time, rewrite it, source it and renominate it. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm failing this article as the prose needs serious rewriting, I'm talking about an entire overhall. It reads very poorly, almost like a machine translation. There's too many instances to point them all out and, doing so, would result in a very hacked together article. It would be much better and likely quicker to rewrite from scratch (without the NPOV issues). Also, there are plenty of unsourced statements throughout the article. It's not focus, rambles on and is actually very difficult to read. I simply do not believe this article can reach GA status within 7 days. Take your time, rewrite it, source it and renominate it. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 16:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)