Talk:Start It Up (Shake It Up)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What's immediately noticeable is that reference number nine does not include a title or publication, but just a link back to another article. This is a major source of the article.
 * The credits of the episode. Candy  o32  00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, try and include more information such as the retrieval date and a url or other source, have a look at Cite.--Ktlynch (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no URL, its the credits of the actual episode, and I have correctly used the cite episode template. See ref 3 in this GA. The only way to credit is the source, which is the actual episode, the directors, writers, episode number and season. I've added the date, though. Candy  o32  14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for my delay in finishing this review, I've been very busy off-line. Reading through the article I do not feel that it meets the GA critieria. While it is well formatted, and someone has clearly lovingly worked over it, it feels puffed up at times and lacks real world context. Here are some of the issues in more detail:

Problems of expression
Some parts I don't really understand: "a female buddy-show with a dance concept, " what's a "female buddy show"? If this is a known trope in TV it might be useful to link to something. I should think that that is the "concept" rather than dance. "To have a dance concept" sounds ridiculous.

"they're dime" tut, tut!

"As they arrive at school, their friend Deuce (Adam Irigoyen) is introduced, offering them bootleg Lady Gaga concert tickets. " Introduced by whom? Why not just say "At school, Deuce, a friend, offers them bootleg tickets to a Lady Gaga concert"

"the original description was described " there's a little redundancy here, and that whole sentence needs re-working too.

The article is strewn with these sorts of typos and errors of style, it could do with a thorough copy-edit and rewrite. There is far too much use of the present participle.

Specific sections
Overall I think the synopsis is far too long, at least 100 words could be cut. The episode is quite short and not exactly complicated.

The "episode production" sub-section is entirely based on the credits, in effect it reproduces these as prose. I'm not sure this is very useful, nor is it a good way to write an encyclopedia article.

Reception, viewing figures are useful to have and often missing from film and TV articles, but there needs to be more. Is there no critical opinion at all? This was a pilot episode so it would be really interesting to see how it was received and the process the studio went through when deciding to commission a whole series.

I don't think the whole list credits should be reproduced. This is the sort of thing better linked too, incidentally does the programme not have an official website?

The picture of Lady Gaga is of poor quality and of only tangential interest to the subject, I think it should be removed. The other image is, I believe, fair use, but it needs a proper justification and more information filled out.

Overall, I think this article needs a lot of work, and some of the material is pure filler to stretch it out a bit. I think it would be better merged into a list of episodes for the programme. It's definitely not of a good standard, though I know there's been some dedicated work, so I'll put it on hold for a while so some more research can be done.


 * Withdrawing nomination Candy  o32  20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fleshed out some of the problems in detail, but as with Meatball It Up, I feel that this would be best merged into a season list for the moment. That way readers can access the main story-arcs and viewer-ship information more easily. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)