Talk:The X Factor (Australian TV series) season 4/GA1

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 05:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to review this article. It's my intention to get to it tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

After discussion with this article's main editor, I'm going to quickfail this article. I'll go ahead and do a cursory review, and as is my habit, I'll fill out the template in case anyone wants to use this feedback to improve it and perhaps bring it back to GAN.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * This really is a list because the lists greatly outnumber the amount of prose; I suggest that if you ever work on improving it, that you bring it to FLC. The small amount of prose looks okay, and the tables follows MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The references are the reason for the quickfail. There's an over-reliance on self-generated sources such as Twitter and blogs.  Keep WP:V in mind; specifically, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."  I'm with Jimmy Wales; any claim that can't be supported by reliable sources should be removed.  That means that, for this article, cutting out all information supported by less-reliable sources.  For example, the audition sites, if the Twitter sources can't be replaced by more reliable sources, should be cut.
 * 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:
 * This seems to be simply a report of the results, but with very little criticism or controversy, although that may be its purpose.
 * 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):
 * This is a very colorful article, with the tables and all, but I wonder if you could add more images, perhaps of the judges and other contestants?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quickfail, mostly due to use of unreliable sources and its list-like quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quickfail, mostly due to use of unreliable sources and its list-like quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)