Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Heroes (TV series)/1

Heroes (TV series)

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist. As discussed below, article needs some work to meet criteria 1a, 2b and 3a. Geometry guy 13:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Heroes article has been a GA since March 2008. Now that the series been cancelled, I think that it's a good time to re-review the article, since it will probably change very little in the future. As it stands, the article has many issues: the prose is not up to scratch, the references are badly cited and not all are from reliable sources, there is way too much cruft and trivial information etc. There are also a few sections which I doubt should even exist, such as all of "Promotions, fandom and references in popular culture", many paragraphs of "Multimedia", and "Comparisons with other works". The worldwide ratings section seems a bit trivial, and while it's a good idea to have international coverage, I don't know if we really need to know how many people watched the premiere in the Netherlands. Some of the references also seem a bit sketchy. The production isn't really well written either, with much of it being just trivial information. Overall, the article is quite out of date, and hasn't really been that well updated since season 2 started. I believe that the article basically fails all of the good article criteria, and as one of the past primary contributors I want to know what others think. Thanks,  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   06:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not every reference has a consistent citation style, some blogs are cited (against RS), and are the popular culture references really necessary? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it desperately needs updating. There's very little about the later seasons and the critical and ratings decline that led to its cancellation. It reads like it's barely been added to since 2008.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have notified Ckatz and Ophois of this discussion. Geometry guy 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Cornucopia, I haven't really updated the article in a while. I mainly just monitor it to make sure there is no vandalism or anything. I agree that the article needs a major overhaul, but disagree with Cornucopia about removing sections such as fandom and references in popular culture as it shows the scope of the show. Right now I am busy working on Supernatural articles, and don't have time to get this one up to standards. Ω  pho  is  21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I gave the "Promotions and fandom" section a massive clean-up, so it's a lot more acceptable now. My main concern is the sourcing and prose quality. It simply isn't up to GA standards.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   09:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't think the disposal lawsuit section is appropriate or the main article. It only applies to one scene in the pilot episode, so it should probably be moved there instead. The painter controversy is borderline, IMO; it might be more appropriate to be in Isaac's article instead. Ω  pho  is  20:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; done.  Corn.u. co.pia  •  Disc.u s.sion   05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)