Talk:Vicious (TV series)
Appearance
Vicious (TV series) was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 11, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Vicious (TV series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 22:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I will be reviewing this for GAN. Give me a couple hours to read this. BenLinus1214talk 22:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I will have to fail this article for now. Basically, the problem is that the article is not very informative or broad enough. Extremely far from a GA in that regard, especially because there are no production notes whatsoever and the episode mostly consists of an episode list. BenLinus1214talk 01:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Your larger numbers of mixed to negative reviews is a bit troubling
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
@CB2288: If you would like to further improve the article, here are some comments:
- The article does not have a wide enough scope. There are no production details, and the series overview and reception sections are much too short.
- A lot of your references boil down to database entries, which shouldn't be over-cited in an article, as they do not illustrate notability.
- Your page mostly consists of an episode list, which isn't really great for a GA. If you think about it, if you remove the episode list, the article is pretty much nothing. I'm not suggesting that you remove it--just pointing that out.
- Lead
- This stuff doesn't have to be cited per WP:LEADCITE.
- Series overview
- Needs expansion.
- Cast and characters
- Unsourced.
- Should probably expand into prose. See Veronica Mars for example.
- Episodes
- Your main ratings link is suffering from WP:Link rot.
- Reception
- No source on Rotten Tomatoes
- Your reviews don't seem to cover an 80% positive review rate.
- DVD Release
- Unsourced
Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class Comedy articles
- Unknown-importance Comedy articles
- WikiProject Comedy articles
- C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- C-Class London-related articles
- Low-importance London-related articles
- C-Class television articles
- Unknown-importance television articles
- C-Class British television articles
- Unknown-importance British television articles
- British television task force articles
- C-Class Episode coverage articles
- Unknown-importance Episode coverage articles
- Episode coverage task force articles
- WikiProject Television articles