Talk:Next (Desperate Housewives)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ruby2010 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * "Desperate Housewives focuses on the lives of several residents living..." Several? It's a large cast with many characters
 * "According to Cherry, Brooks was cast because he exuded a "dangerous" quality, as well as "a combination of this wholesome, sweet quality and a dark, brooding quality."[15]" Use different word for first "quality"
 * Ratings: I noticed some differences between what the lead says and what's in the reception section:
 * The reception section says "helping ABC earn its largest Sunday night audience in 10 years" but the lead makes no mention of Sunday.
 * "Additionally, it was ABC's most watched season premiere in nine years" vs "making it the most watched season premiere on ABC in ten years"
 * 28 or 28.4 million viewers?


 * The lead says "several critics noted that the episode showed signs of suffering from a sophomore slump." But I cannot find any instances of critics saying this below besides Michael Slezak (who isn't really saying there are signs of a sophomore slump; just the opposite in fact).

I'll place this one on hold for seven days, as I believe the above issues can be addressed within that time frame. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Happy to pass this one.  Ruby  2010/  2013  05:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)