Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/QI/1
QI[edit]
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. Clear concerns and no opposition. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
After recently making comments on the article's talk page and making some big changes myself, I feel that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria. I have listed some points for improvement on the talk page: specifically referring to the GA criteria, I think the article fails to meet:
- 2b — Inline citations: I have added lots of {{citation needed}} templates for unsourced material.
- 2c — Original research: Lots of little sentences like
although greater attempts have been made to do so since series D(example from #Episodes) that are unsourced sound to me like they've been written based on a contributor's personal opinion. - 3a — Broad: I think the Reception section should be expanded, although this probably isn't as important an issue as the others listed here.
- 3b — Focused: I don't want to delete a massive section without consensus, but I don't think much (if any) of the Guest appearances section is necessary — especially the number of wins per player. I have searched for references to see if any particularly notable people deserve mentions, but even Daniel Radcliffe and David Tennant's appearances don't seem to have been mentioned by any reliable sources. (Also, sections Mistakes and corrections and Episodes might be too detailed, the latter potentially containing fancruft about the audience.)
I would also like some of my changes to be looked over — I have added a whole new Controversy section, that no-one else has touched. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 20:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)