Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Clash 2010/GA1

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 22, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Fails here. Significant amount of copyediting needed throughout. Article lacks a good deal of context and background about the subject matter. Would strongly recommend contacting talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects, as well as WP:GOCE, and going for a peer review, prior to nominating for another Good Article Nomination process.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Fails here. Lack of citations to reliable sources, specifically, secondary sources independent of the subject. Multiple entire subsections lack any citations whatsoever. Those that have cites, appear to be primary affiliated with the subject matter, and not independent. These are okay, but should not comprise the bulk of the entire article's references.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Fails here. Needs additional context and background info, as mentioned above. Lacks secondary source critical commentary, analysis, and reception.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Fails here. Due to over reliance upon sources affiliated directly with the subject, and lack of secondary sources and independent sources, there is a problem with POV due to weighting to sources with inherent conflict of interest.
 * 5. Article stability? Fails here. There are concerns about WP:BLP, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:IINFO on the talk page that are not yet fully addressed.
 * 6. Images?: Fails here. 1) File:PBBTeenClash.jpg = this image does not serve a purpose in the article, and the picture is not the subject of secondary source critical commentary in the article. 2) File:UniteBigNight.jpg = this image appears to be not free, and more info is needed, it also does not serve a purpose in the article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)