Talk:Live & Kicking/GA1

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

Review by Mgm|(talk) (please add your own comments at the far bottom of the page):
 * 1) Well-written: I've done some copyedits. I will add more to the bottom of this review.
 * 2) Factual accuracy: I couldn't find any obvious inaccuracies and I'll be checking references after the article content itself has been reviewed.
 * 3)  Coverage: Haven't there been controversies like those with Dick and Dom in da Bungalow and Blue Peter? None at all? This shouldn't be turned into a sensation piece, but at least some such thing should be mentioned if applicable.
 * You mean like phone-ins? This had ended way before that controversy happened. I added a bit about Theakston and Natalie Appleton, but couldn't find anything else "controversial".  Majorly  talk  15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really flow well, and it's not really important in the greater scheme of things. Shall we remove it after all?
 * Fine by me.  Majorly  talk  20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral: I edited one bit of POV out. Rest is clear.
 * 2) Stable:
 * 3) Images: The second image, Image:LiveandKicking1.jpg has a faulty fair use rationale. The description on the image page doesn't establish who is pictured in the screenshot and it also doesn't say why it is important to have it. The first statement in the fair use rationale, "1.No free equivalent exists that would effectively identify the article's subject." doesn't apply since the image subject isn't actually the subject of the article.
 * The image should probably be removed, I agree. I didn't add it, but left it in anyway.  Majorly  talk  15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can replace it with an image of Ball and Theakston since they are critically commented upon in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No free image of either unfortunately.  Majorly  talk  20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I don't think any image is needed, other than the logo.  Majorly  talk  23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Content issues and suggested copyedits:
 * 1) The lead section ends with the statement that it is the longest-running show of its kind. This is not referenced and not repeated later on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. Also, the claim is dubious since the show wasn't broadcast continually but only during the winter months.
 * Not at all; I found this fact referenced in three different places. I added one reference; can add more.  Majorly  talk  15:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and drop in those other references. Can't have too much references for claims like this one. Perhaps the reliability of one of the others is easier to determine too. (I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I'm not totally convinced about Offthetelly either) - Mgm|(talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  23:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Neither the running time nor the picture format in the infobox are referenced. Also, the infobox said it was broadcast on BBC1, which is curious since every single such show I can remember ran on BBC 2. Do you have a reference?
 * I'm not sure what you're thinking of, but L&K was never on BBC 2. Fully Booked, which ran in the summer was on BBC 2. I'll add a ref for it if possible.  Majorly  talk  15:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't found that reference yet. - Mgm|(talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added one that mentions the change to widescreen (which is 16:9).  Majorly  talk  20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Children's programming was moved to BBC Two in 2006 (BBC mulls Saturday morning switch), refs 16 and 17 mention it as a BBC One show. mattbr 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I edited the line, but the original said that from the second series (I'm assuming the word 'onwards' could be inserted) John Barrowman presented a segment. When did he leave?
 * At the end of the second series; hopefully clarified.  Majorly  talk  15:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Ratings continued to plummet because of SMTV Live and the show's premise "which was dated and dull". Pardon my ignorance, but to me all Saturday morning TV looks the same. You should give specific examples to make these words count. Also, if it is a direct quote, it should be treated as such, if it isn't, it should be removed.
 * Removed and reworded.  Majorly  talk  15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) "Hill was replaced with Heather Suttie" Why?
 * No reason is given in any source I could find, most likely because the move to Scotland didn't suit Hill.  Majorly  talk  15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  Run the risk was a segment in the first few series. Can you be more specific? The segment's description could be tightened up a bit.
 * Better?  Majorly  talk  16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)  A live and kicking game was created. Was that a video game or a board game or some other type?
 * A video game.  Majorly  talk  15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I said a picture of Ball and Theakston, I meant a non-free one. I think a fair use claim for them is easier made than for the current image. - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact Fully Booked and FBi ran on BBC2 should be mentioned in the article (and referenced) and while it may look like common knowledge I think an attempt should be made to source the 4:3 aspect ratio as well. Either that L&K had that ratio during its first few seasons or a ref that says the ratio was common during that time. If you think the image needs to be removed, go ahead and take the appropriate action. - Mgm|(talk) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are mentioned, and referenced... the channel it was on is irrelevant. I'll remove the ratios, there's nowhere it's sourced as far I can see. I'll remove the image.  Majorly  talk  19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox also doesn't contain references for the running time and start/end dates for the show. The latter should probably be mentioned directly in the article, but I think a ref for the running time should end up in the infobox. Do you have one? - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The latter are mentioned in the article - have you even looked, because it sounds like you haven't. I'll look for a ref for the running time.  Majorly  talk  14:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Any more objections?  Majorly  talk  14:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)