Talk:Paid Programming (TV pilot)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: non found.

Linkrot: one found and tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 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):
 * Poorly written, e.g. Paid Programming (also known as Paid Programming: Icelandic Ultra Blue or Icelandic Ultra Blue) is television pilot for Cartoon Network's late night programing block, Adult Swim. ; that it would do poorly ratings wise; Paid Programing was not picked up as a full series, as revealed when Benjamin referred to it as an "abject failure".; Similar to the broadcast history of The Rising Son, another program on Adult Swim,; Adult Swim revived negative feedback ; With out any credits, ;
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref #1 does not support the statement: was aired in the United States on November 3, 2009 at 4:30 am (ET), unannounced and unadvertised
 * ref #6, which is a dead link, is not a WP:RS. IMDB ratings count for nothing.
 * ref 7#, messages on fan forums are not RS.
 * ELs - Paid Programming at the Internet Movie Database needs to be removed from the ELs as it is already used as a source, per WP:EL
 * The article relies on WP:Primary sources. Other WP:Secondary sources need to be found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As noted above there is nothing about reception cited to reliable secondary sources. There may be nothing out there, but until there is, this fails the broadness criteria.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * appears stable enough.
 * 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):
 * The image used has insufficient information in its rationale. "To show" is insufficient; Replacable: yes, indicates that another free image is avaialable, if so then use that.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is poorly written, poorly referenced and fails to meet the broadness required of good articles. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)