Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

#:: The caption for File:Braff, Zach (LF).JPG is not acceptable. This is a photo taken on the picket line, it has nothing to do with his MySpace comments.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS): ❌
 * The Lead does not fully summarize the article. A good guide is that every section of the article should be summarized in a sentence in the lead, for instance there is nothing about music, impact/reception or awards in the lead. The lead states: The series has repeatedly featured guest appearances by movie actors not generally seen on episodic television, such as Colin Farrell, Heather Graham, and Brendan Fraser., but this does appear in the article. I don't think the geo-coords need to be next to  North Hollywood Medical Center where this is mentioned as a location.  The geo-coords for that hospital belong in the article which is already wikilinked. I suggest that Impact should contain a section on critical reception. The last sentence of the lead: The show's title is a play on surgical scrubs and the slang term for a "low-life" level individual (the main cast of the show was originally made up of medical interns, one of the lowest ranks in the medical hierarchy).'' is not echoesd in teh artcile and would need citing.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): ❌ b (citations to reliable sources)'❌':  c (OR)'': ❌
 * There are a number of dead links, some have been tagged for some time. I have added citation needed tags where I believe support for the statement is needed.  There were also some outstanding tags.
 * Ref #1 does not mention number of episodes; ref #7 refers to the episode His Story IV, it shouldn't be wikilinked as that makes it a reference to another WP article; ref #18 doesn't relate to Scrubs; ref #24 is a dead link; ref #46 is dead, ref # 66 is dead, as is ref #69.
 * With regards to the Zach Braff Blog, MySpace and Facebook citations can you find 3rd party reliable sources that confirm these postings are by Zach Braff. With out such confirmation these are not RS. This encompasses refs # 15, 29, 30, 43, 63,  73, 75.  Reading the discussion of this issue at WP:RSN at  should help.  If they can be shown to be genuine, then such posts could only ever be used to demonstrate Zach Braff's opinions as they would be self published sources.  If used they should be introduced as a direct quote - something like - In his blog Zach Braff wrote "quote".
 * I have tagged areas where a citation is needed to confirm that no OR is involved.
 * Some of the citations are just a bare URL with title, they should be consistently formatted using the appropriate citation templates.
 * 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) 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): ❌
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): ❌
 * 1) Overall: On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: ❌
 * The sum total of edits in the past seven days is little apart from a little bit of vandal reverting and a couple of stylistic chnages. The nominator was informed of the review but has failed to respond. I am not listing the article.  It can be brought back to WP:GAN when the above points have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)