Talk:The X Factor (British TV series) series 7/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 13:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? ✅ - Certainly

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? - Take a look at words to watch and list incorporation. Across the whole article.

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout? ✅ - However, there is an invalid ref tag. Check the references at the bottom of the page.

4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? ✅

5. It contains no original research? ✅

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic? ✅ - Certainly

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? - Very long, too much detail like ratings. Maybe cut down the article as it is very long.

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each? ✅

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? - A few edit wars?

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images: ✅ - Some of bad quality/angles.

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? ✅

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions? ✅ - Again, could be better.

Pass or fail? Placing on hold for issues to be addressed.
 * Hi, thanks for reviewing this. Unfortunately I have no internet access at home and only have one hour per day at the library, so I will be unable to do a lot. I have asked a couple of people if they would help out but if you could be more specific then it would be very helpful. If there are only minor things, would you consider possibly fixing them yourself? I'll come back tomorrow and see what I can do. – anemone projectors – 13:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, all you really need to do is:

Change the ref tag, maybe improve the images, cut down the article length, a few words are not supposed to be used according to the manual of style, however, there is very few of them so this isn't compulsory. Ok?  Puffin  ''Let's talk! 14:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see an invalid ref tag, which number is it? – anemone projectors – 11:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You fixed the ref yesterday, when you reverted the addition of the original artists. - JuneGloom    Talk  12:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh good. – anemone projectors – 14:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As for images, the studios one isn't great, but it's the only one we have on Wikimedia. The same for Matt Cardle. The others seem perfectly fine. Searching Flickr gives no alternatives that could be uploaded. I don't think I'd have time to cut down the article length with the limited time I have online at the moment. – anemone projectors – 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It could be cut down by putting the live show details in a seperate article. Rain the One  BAM 12:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a very good idea. – anemone projectors – 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If the second opinion request is on the separate article, then I agree that that's a bad move. Keep it all in one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, I will pass the article now.  Puffin  Let's talk! 13:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion - One Direction
I personally think One Direction should be mentioned in the lead, their the global breakout of 7th series. thoughts? AdabowtheSecond (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)