Talk:Keeping Up with the Kardashians/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will review this. Posting my comments today. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

the eleventh season of the show Numbers equal to or greater than 10 are typically kept in digits.
It additionally places emphasis Can it be simply "emphasizes"?
Kim's best friend Jonathan Cheban and Khloé's best friend Malika Haqq "best friend" seems informal. We do not really know the relationships between them, and I am not sure if the people themselves have stated this. Perhaps "close friends" would do.
been a part of the show "a" seems unnecessary.

Background

together, daughters I think it should be colon not comma.
Can Olympic be linked?

Development

In August 2007, it was announced By whom?
I think sitcom should be linked
The show debuted on E!, an American cable network which features mostly entertainment-related programming and reality television series You should introduce E! the first time it is mentioned in the section.
Keeping Up With the Kardashians premiered on October 14, 2007 You should mention earlier that the show had been named so. Something like "The proposed show, named Keeping Up With the Kardashians, premiered on October 14, 2007"
premiere citing high ratings Should this be "cited"?
we really are." E! has never once I think a double quote has been added here by mistake.
Was wondering if money conversion templates should be used in this article.
the television series are used to Should be "is" if you refer to the series as a whole

Cast

All the names in the first two lines, except "Brody", should be delinked. All of them are duplicate links.
it was later claimed that Humphries By whom?

Related programming

Duplinks: spin-off, Lamar Odom, Dash Dolls, Kris Humphries, Caitlyn Jenner

Critical response

Duplinks: The Hollywood Reporter, trans woman

Viewership

Duplink: E!, Lamar Odom
3 million total viewers The numbers should be in words as per the MOS.

Awards and nominations

has been nominated and "nominated for"?
I assume the whole intro is based on the sources of the table?

Broadcast history

August 22 and concluded with another "Junk in the Trunk" episode on December 20, 2010 In the first date you do not mention the year 2010 but the next does.
Where is the year mentioned and where is it not? Generally once you begin with a year you need not repeat till the next year begins.
9/8pm time period Should be "9:00/8:00 pm" as earlier.
The eleventh season This should be in digits in my opinion.

The prose is well-written and the sources look good. That should be all. Good luck! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: A bit busy now, I think I will be able to get to this only by the end of this week. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Hello. Really happy that someone has finally decided to review my article, much appreciated! I believe I fixed all the listed problems. Have some futher comments/questions:

Per MOS:NUMERAL, "integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in word". I think it's better to write the numbers of the seasons in words, especially in the Broadcast section which already has so many numbers as part of premiere dates. Thought reading the article would be smoother with fewer numbers. Wat do you think?

What did you mean by money conversion templates?

You mean you want me to change the sentence into "has been nominated for and won several television awards"? Would it be grammatically correct?

Looking forward to your response and possible addtitional comments. Mymis (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mymis. The article looks better. If you feel the MOS policy will not suit the article, then you can choose not to write the numbers in digits. I think I will drop the money conversion suggestion; it is not followed in many articles and I myself am clueless about its documentation. About the grammar trouble, I see I did not pay attention there. You need not rewrite it the way I suggested. This article is indeed a great job. No copyvio detected, sources, images and prose look good to me. I believe it meets all the GA criteria now. I am happy to promote this. Excellent work! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promoting my very first Good article, really appreciate you devoting your time to read it. Thank you again, and have a nice day. Mymis (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]