Talk:Off the Air (TV series)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bentvfan54321 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll take this one. I hope to have some comments within 2-4 days or so. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review

• The only dead links are the ones that are tagged as such. While it is not absolutely required for GA, I recommend trying to find archived copies of the urls or finding a different source.
  • The only archived copy for the "Animals" episode is archived at archive.today, which is blacklisted for some profoundly stupid reason. 23W (stalk)
• I'm uncomfortable with Son of the Bronx per WP:BLOGS. Pucci's posts on TV Media Insights are okay; however, Pucci's blog has recently come under fire for copyright violations. I recommend either finding another source for the claims or seeing if Pucci posted the same thing on TV Media Insights.
  • Removed and replaced. 23W (stalk)

Lead

• "...the series remains relatively unknown" What exactly is unknown? Is it the status of the series? Its plot? The fact that it exists?
  • It's status on the network, yeah. Added this in. 23W (stalk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis

• This looks good, but it seems awfully short as it is technically only one single sentence. Is there any way to expand that at all?
  • I've struggled with this one. To me, it's pretty self-evident; in the Juxtapoz article, Hughes states that not much else can describe it: "But, in my own words, Off the Air is essentially a visual mixtape that really doesn't need any clear explanation, right?" 23W (stalk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to look at the Production and Broadcast and Reception sections soon. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this! 23W (stalk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Second round

• Per Template:Infobox television#Attributes, which states "An image with the title logo of the show does not need a caption", I'd remove the caption from the infobox.
  • The show doesn't have a title logo. That's just one of the posters they use to brand their show online. 23W (stalk)
• "...after producing a video mixtape that would that would be projected..." remove the second "that would"
  • Oops! Fixed. 23W (stalk)
• The Dup detector shows that the second sentence of the lead is verbatim to text some of the text in ref 8. Rephrase that.
  • It seems they've copied from this article, as evidenced by this lone ref link (#cite_note-Miami_New_Times-1), which is used normally in Wikipedia, but not for their website. 23W (stalk)
• Are some of the links in ref 12 the same? That appears to be the case, they are just different archived copies of the same article.
  • Fixed; I got one of the titles wrong. All the citations give different URLs, and I checked the archive URLs and they all correspond with the main link. 23W (stalk)

Those are the only outstanding issues I can find. The prose looks good, the article is adequately sourced, and the quotes are well-placed. Fix these minor issues, and I'll pass the article. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bentvfan54321: Thanks for your review! How does it look now? 23W (stalk) 23:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@23W: Ok, I didn't see that the ref had copied text from a previous version of this article. Looks great, passing now, though if you want this to have a shot at FAC, those dead links will probably have to be resolved one way or another. If you're up to it, do you mind reviewing one of my nominations? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those links are ever coming back, but I don't think the FA process forbids them (unless I'm mistaken). Thanks again, and will do! 23W (stalk) 23:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)