From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject British TV shows, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British TV shows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project British TV shows, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as mid-Importance on the importance scale. |
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
|
[edit] Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 11, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: There are problems in this article with overly long and in some cases obvious run-on sentences. Examples include the first paragraph of the Lead, second sentence of the Production section, as well as most of the second, third and fourth paragraphs in that same section. Also there are mistakes with punctuation, which should be placed inside of quoted text.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Good usage of Citation Templates, though there is a small problem with the References/Notes section, which I will make a minor correction to.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers good key points and various areas of the program. I would suggest splitting the Broadcast and reception section into two separate subsections, "Broadcast" and "Reception."
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in neutral tone.
- 5. Article stability? No problems see on the talk page or in article history going back to article creation (article was created recently).
- 6. Images?: No images used, so not an issue. Would it be possible to use perhaps a screenshot or a fair-use image, with detailed fair use rationale provided on the image page?
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- After above points have been addressed, please note changes made to fix them here below. Message my talk page when that is done and I will take another look at the article. You have Seven Days. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
- 1. I've run through the prose and can't see any "obvious" run-on sentences but I've ironed out some excessive occurences of "[comma] with" and "[comma] though". If there is still a prose issue I will submit the article to LoCE to see what they can do. Quote punctuation has been amended to conform to WP:PUNC.
- 3. I gave splitting the sections a go when I was sandboxing this and it didn't work. The problem is the original broadcast leads to a reception (award), that leads to another broadcast (notable repeat), that leads to more reception. Splitting the sections would mean introducing the Montreux win in the middle of the broadcast section or otherwise splitting paragraphs that rely on each other to make sense.
- 6. I'm sure a buttock-related screenshot can be arranged if I insert some info on the filming of the scene.
Thanks for your thorough review. Brad (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Pass
- I looked it over and the article is now of a quality that I feel I can pass it as a GA, good work. The article could definitely still use a bit more proofreading and copy-editing as far as prose and such, but this is something that could be ironed out in a Peer Review. And yes, WP:LOCE would be a good idea as well.
Y Done -- Pass. I will update the necessary GA things. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
