Talk:You're Whole/GA1

GA Review
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)

Will finish this within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, 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)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * 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

On hold
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! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments! How does it read now? 23W 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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! ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 17:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)