Talk:You're Whole

You're Whole has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 12, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cartoon Network Low‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from You're Whole appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the premiere episode of You're Whole earned nearly one million viewers, despite airing at 4 a.m.?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/You're Whole.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:You're Whole/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish this within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jaguar, thanks for taking this. I've expanded the article slightly, expanding upon the end of the show and the reasoning behind the time slot. Apologies for not doing this earlier. 23W 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

The only true concern I could find with this article is the length of the lead section - even though this article is small and compact, the lead could be expanded a little and split into the bare two paragraphs in order to summarize the article per WP:LEAD (I have no idea why the peer reviewer is saying the lead is too long!)

The synopsis and reception could be expanded a little in the lead
- Expanded. 23W

"Randall Tyree Mandersohn: a "totally blind"" - totally blind in what context? Is he actually blind?
- It's how he describes it in the show. The show is intentionally surreal, and so his abilities get overstated a lot for comedic effect. Might be simpler to just put "blind", but I dunno. 23W
"In a June 2014 interview with the Detroit Metro Times, Brown stated that the series had been ended" - is this referring to the whole TV show or a season?
- Clarified; changed a lot of instances of "series" to "show" while I was at it. 23W
"with many reviewers praising Black's performance and the satirizing of American gurus" - gurus specializing in what?
- Expanded ("self-help gurus"). 23W

References[edit]

No dead links, and the citations are all good, so no problems here

On hold[edit]

Good work with the article and thank you for expanding it before I got to doing this! It's a well written article and overall it's neat and compact. Also no issues with the references, hence the fairly short review. The only problem I could find with it was the shortness of the lead, but other than that nothing worthy. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thank you for your comments! How does it read now? 23W 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your expansion and improvements - the article looks solid. Looks to me that it now meets the "broadness" part of the criteria along with everything else. Well done! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]