Talk:What It's Like Being Alone

What It's Like Being Alone has been listed as one of the 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 6, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Template:Canadian TV shows project

Reception

the second paragraph in that section is and always has been original research- not only collected from a virtual message board, but an original summary, evaluation and synthesis of the posts there. How does everyone feel about removing it? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here it was, by the way: "The public reception has been decidedly mixed, with IMDb user reviews split more or less down the middle between contempt and adoration. This might not have been entirely unexpected, as the series itself relies heavily on absurdity and gothic surrealism, with an uneasy balance struck between the seemingly cartoonish animation and the distinctly adult-yet-immature brand of black humour, which nevertheless fails even to conform to typical standards of that style. This has led many viewers to question whether the show was either very poorly written, or very well written, with the answers depending largely on whether they themselves found it funny." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This is how the article, as of February 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass Well-written prose, nice flow.

2. Factually accurate?: Weak Fail Sections of the article seems well sourced, but there are a few unsourced statements that could use sources: The character section could use some sourcing (such as who voiced who), and several parts of the pilot section are unsourced. Episode titles need sources too.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass. This is about a TV show, and almost every aspect of it I could think of is covered here.

4. Neutral point of view?: Weak Fail. Generally neutral, but there are a couple unsourced statements, including "Commentators considered these ratings to reflect a generally poor performance of CBC programming in 2006."

5. Article stability? Pass. As far as I can tell...

6. Images?: Pass Only one image, and it might not hurt to have another, but its not a necessity.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

So, it's mostly just sourcing problems. I'll put the article on hold until the concerns are addressed. -- Scorpion 16:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The character and plot sections generally describe the plot and that traditionally requires no citations, and the voices can be taken from the credits as well as many sources- it's no secret. Many articles have cast sections with no citations for "who played who". (2) The episode titles are sourced, as at the beginning a reference is given to the episode guide. But even if that isn't clear enough, the episode titles are in the episodes! (3) As for the neutrality concern- per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article and doesn't need citations. The reception section has citations for this. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the episode titles are in the episodes!" As a veteran of trying to get TV-related stuff promoted, I must say that that usually doesn't work as well as it should. However, I'm convinced and I grant this article GA status. -- Scorpion 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website's gone!

Why is the link still there? (Really, if there's a reason please give it) -Annon3

Problem fixed ;). For the flash version of the CBC site, you must click on the lone character for the other characters to appear that give access to other information. --Pragmatic.fool 11:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]