Talk:What Would You Do? (season 1)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Heartfox (talk · contribs) 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Review forthcoming. Heartfox (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Criteria
Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review

 * was well-received by critics and viewers, gaining an average viewership of 7.77 million viewers per episode. not in sources or rest of article.
 * entire basis of development section is taken from one reference, an essay in the Columbia Journalism Review.
 * filming section is better, but they all rely on ABC News pieces which are used as promo
 * the episode summaries are supposed to conform at least somewhat to the ShortSummary parameter in Template:Episode list, not be the titles(?) of each segment.
 * where are the episode titles cited from?
 * Keating's comment is not really a "critical response" about the show, but of the outcome of a segment.
 * none of the Avon Foundation info is in the source
 * Your Entertainment Now appears to be self-published and not super reliable. I know it is probably correct and a lot of stuff isn't available but this is not really acceptable for GA.
 * episode 4 18-49 rating is not in source
 * the voice of change award was given to Quiñones, not the show. also you don't need to use a table for 1 award; prose is fine.

Result
The structure of the article and reference format are good, but this is not close to GA. Consider a wider variety of sources. If none are available, most of the info could be added into a history section in the main article and this could become a redirect again. Heartfox (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)