Talk:It Takes a Church/GA1

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Grabbing for a review. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the lead, put ratings and review information.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Was the second season not sponsored by Christian Mingle?
 * I assume so, given it's part of the consolation prize; however, I cannot find a reliable source that states whether it was or not. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "dating game show" would suffice, not "dating reality game show".
 * --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * For consistency, title both the corresponding sections as "gameplay" or "format".
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * File of Natalie Grant might be nice in the format section.
 * --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What's an "upfront presentation"?
 * Not sure where you live, but in the US, it's when a television network organizes a press conference to detail their programming ideas and/or slate for the upcoming television (which, in the States, is (usually) September to May, though since GSN is a lower-end cable channel this is not always the case with them). --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Take out the "also" in the sponsoring sentence.
 * ✅ --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Any news about whether it has been renewed for a third season?
 * GSN rarely announces cancelation for any of their programs. The website is dead, no news since the second season ended a few months ago, so it's safe to say the series is dead, at least for the foreseeable, immediate future. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If possible, I would expand on some of the reviewers' main comments of the show.
 * ✅ with Conroy's review, thought the others were of adequate expansion already but let me know if you think otherwise. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's impossible to compare the ratings figures for the first and second seasons because they're in different numerical formats. Make them the same if possible; if not, it's okay to keep it the way it is.
 * Press releases for ratings for shows like this are few and far to come by. I've done my best, but there's just simply not similar ratings info at there for season-to-season. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment from the other article is the same for "at the Wayback Machine". Also, as this is possibly ongoing, is there really no website up for it?
 * Resolved at the Mind of a Man review, and yes, the website is down. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, not too much. By the way, if possible, could you review one of my Veronica Mars articles? There are five up at the moment. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am real busy this week but will see what I can do regarding this and Mind of a Man. Regarding a QPQ, I'll try, but again, I can't make any promises with my time constraints. If you need anything else, feel free to give me a call, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think it's done. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm satisfied now! I can pass. Johanna  (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: