Talk:Divided (American game show)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
no concerns

Gameplay
no concerns

Production
"the series officially premiered January 19, 2017, alongside the season four premiere of GSN's" What does alongside mean here? Before? After? The word makes me think it aired at the same time.
Done. --

I think the sentence talking about the host selection should come before the one on the show's premiere to keep the events chronological. Is there a date for when the host was chosen/announced?
Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
I think it would be helpful to put the ratings in context. Could they be compared to the ratings of "Idiotest" or other new GSN shows from the same time frame?
Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concerns
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concerns

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concerns on sources.

C. It contains no original research:
no concerns

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
matches on earwig are short phrases for rules and attributed quotes. no concerns
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I haven't given either article a thorough read yet, but is the gameplay in the US version significantly different from the British version to warrant a mention? Or similarities to versions from other countries?
The only major difference is that there are four contestants instead of three, aside from the special edition noted in the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concerns
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concerns
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no vandalism or disputes I can see.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One image with rationale

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Lack of caption for the logo is inline with other game show articles, but some kind of WP:ALTTEXT is needed.
Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
A few minor issues/suggestions, otherwise an easy pass. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I believe it's Done. Thanks for the review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]