Talk:The View (talk show)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Creativity97 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Review

 * The lead section is not long enough, and does not cover or explain briefly and poignantly all the points the article covers.
 * The "Format" section is severely lacking in several areas: several sentences and claims require in-line citations and verification to prove that they are true. Considering the series has been on the air for two decades, this section is lacking in information and in sources and as a result is very underdeveloped.
 * Keep things in historical perspective. On October 30, 2014, --> In October 2014,
 * For a subsection that is supposed to cover 17 seasons, 2 paragraphs also seems severely lacking and underdeveloped in content and verifiable sources.
 * Too many grammar issues in the season 18 subsection. Keep things in historical perspective. Needs a copyedit, as "in summer 2014" is extremely badly written and grammatically incorrect.
 * Seasons 19–20 subsection is also way too brief; lacking, underdeveloped, and in need of more sources.
 * The co-host section and its subsection seems fine in terms of content but needs a huge general copyedit for the same reasons listed above, and also to eliminate unnecessary repeated information, which I'm seeing a lot of.
 * The notable episodes section needs a ton of work. General copyedit to start (there are several sentences that are just on their own as if they are all separate paragraphs - extremely messy), but then more content with verifiable sources is going to need to be added to make it seem more noteworthy of having its own section.
 * Reception section seems fine in terms of content, but it also seems like the bare minimum in terms of research was done here. I guarantee that you can find so much more quotes from critics and other information for this section over the past 20 years. Also needs a general copyedit.
 * The rest of the article does not require any changes or further work in my opinion.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The majority of the article has far too many grammatical concerns. Needs copyediting.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Several parts of the article need more verifiable sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Definitely needs a lot more work in terms of coverage.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Fail. A lot more work needs to be done on this article before it can be passed for GA. Keep working on it with my comments and nominate it again when more work has been put into it.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Fail. A lot more work needs to be done on this article before it can be passed for GA. Keep working on it with my comments and nominate it again when more work has been put into it.