Talk:Forever (2014 TV series)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 17, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
4. Copyvio Detector tool -- https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Forever+%28U.S.+TV+series%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- shows all sources show below 30 percent confidence ... but I'd like to hear from Bignole about the past issue from the article talk page about prior copyvio concerns, and if those have since been addressed in the time since then.
5. Per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect could be expanded a bit more. Other than "television critics believed that other factors explained the network's decision" -- we don't know much about Reception from just reading the lede intro sect. Suggest adding more from Reception to expand sect. I'd like to see a lede total size of at least 3 paragraphs of 4 sentences per paragraph.
6. Reception -- "The series also generated conversation on social media. Forever was the most-discussed show on social media during the upfronts for the 2014–2015 television season, generating 231,646 social media posts during that period." -- one-sentence-long-standalone-paragraph, could be expanded or up-merged into another paragraph.
7. See also -- why are cites needed for a mere one See also link ?
8. Otherwise from points noted above and below, overall structure, layout, presentation, and yes, writing quality of article -- is quite good.

2. Verifiable?:

1. It would be nice to have some citations to secondary sources to back up the Premise and the Cast and characters sections. I suppose it's not necessary as technically you could say it's sort of Plot info, but if you can, that'd make the article higher quality with increased posterity over time.
2. Checklinks tool at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Forever_%28U.S._TV_series%29 -- shows at least thirteen (13) problem hyperlinks. Suggest archiving these with the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive with WP:CIT fields archiveurl and archivedate. Really should archive all links in the article, to increase posterity over time, but definitely at least these 13. These are any link in the Checklinks tool report with any number value that is not a "200" or a "0".
3. Per WP:LEADCITE, the material asserted is non-contentious, so the cites in the lede should be removed, if cited again later in article body text.
4. Except for Premise and Cast of characters sects, great job with in-line citations, throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is indeed thorough, good job on the Premise section, to help ground the reader in some background information. Good job here.

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on all the international reception stuff. No way those need to have their own separate subsections for each place.
2. Suggest trimming those down in size, and just having one big sect, called Reception or Critical reception. You can structure it so that each country has its own paragraph, but smaller, please.
3. Controversy sect -- this could be retitled as Title dispute and moved somewhere into the Production sect, as less POV than calling it "Controversy".

5. Stable?

1. Upon inspection of article edit history -- going back to August 2015, I'm only finding some minor disruption from IPs, I think we can assume the GA Nominator will continue to monitor this type of thing and request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, if necessary, in the future.
2. Inspection of talk page, however, shows a few concerning issues, and I'd like to hear more about them and how/if they were resolved?
3. Talk:Forever_(U.S._TV_series)#Copyright -- I'd like to hear from both GA Nominator but also please from Bignole about this one, as it is potentially a serious potential concern about WP:COPYVIO.
4. Talk:Forever_(U.S._TV_series)#Abe.27s_surname -- I see WP:Dispute resolution in the form of a WP:Third opinion was required here. Please explain this, was it resolved amicably to the satisfaction of all parties involved? Jeraphine Gryphon could comment on this, below.

6. Images?: Very good fair use rationale for the one image in the article at present, the infobox photo. But perhaps add a free-use image of Ioan Gruffudd ?

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Copyright violation - The copyright violation I spoke of was in relation to the opening narration. It was basically transcribed on the page. It had no real purpose and was just a basic violation of WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, because it didn't serve any purpose and was technically non-free script material. As of this time, it's no longer on the page. So, I cannot speak for other COPYVIO issues outside of that, but it seems to be taken care of.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that clears that much up nicely, thank you very much, Bignole ! — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• 5.4. -- all's good. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Matters and resolution:

• 1.5 -- The second paragraph mentions several things in the Reception subsection, but I went ahead and edited the third paragraph. I divided it into two sentences and added information about the increase in audience from DVR viewing.

• 1.6 -- I cut that as it was covered in the pilot's Previews subsection.

• 1.7 -- I removed the links from the See Also section. One of the links was already used as a citation elsewhere, so I moved that link and a second link to the Premise section. The third link was moved to the Reception section.SciGal (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• 2.1 -- I added the sources that I removed from the See Also section and placed them in the premise. The Cast and characters section, however, was a bit more problematic as the majority of the information was cited in various episodes. I could add references to the actual episode if you want. As for secondary sources, I added what I could find.

• 2.2 -- I used Checklink to find the references which were not listed as either 200 or 0. The ones listed as 301 were YouTube videos; I changed the http:// to https:// so that the 301 was changed to 200.

• 2.3 -- I removed the sources from the lede and moved the more reliable ones to the Broadcast history section. The others were deleted.

• 4.1 -- I removed the subsections so that there is a single Reception section.

• 4.2 -- I trimmed the former International reception section by moving the ratings for the pilot and the finale to those articles.

• 4.3 -- I renamed and moved the now-Title dispute section as you've requested.

SciGal (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah you can for sure cite the episodes themselves as references for that sort of non-contentious info. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Reevaluation by GA Reviewer

1. Checklinks tool results looks much better, at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Forever_%28U.S._TV_series%29
2. Prior copyright issue seems resolved.
3. Prior stability issue appears resolved.
4. Reception sect looks much better.
5. Copyvio detector has excellent, low result, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Forever+%28U.S.+TV+series%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
6. Have you taken some time to read the instructions as suggested in my suggestion point 3, above, just as something to consider for yourself, that is optional only, and a suggestion, but a way for you to at least familiarize yourself with reading the instructions and then think about whether you wish to help the Wikipedia community by paying it forward ?
7. Lede intro sect: Fans of the series reacted strongly, creating a social media campaign to save the series. -- we are left wondering what happened in the end with this, what was the end result? We find out later, but should be mentioned in the lede intro sect.
8. See also sect looks better.
9. Not necessary right now, but strongly recommend for the future, archiving all links to Wayback Machine.
10. Not necessary right now, but recommend at some point adding secondary sources as citations to Premise and Cast sects.

Will reevaluate again, after responses to above, noted below, please. — Cirt (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Matters and resolutions:

• 6. Personally, yes, I've read it, and I am considering it (even if this marks the third time that I've done a GA review myself).
• 7. I added reference to the outcome of the fan campaign.
• 9. It's on the to-do list for improvement.
• 10. I added citations to the individual episodes for the characters' histories.
• 11. (AKA 6.1 above) I added this photo of Ioan Gruffudd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2007_Ioan_Gruffudd.jpg). It might need to be resized SciGal (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, please update back here when you're all done with your to-do list and addressing all of above. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The only thing left to do, really, is to archive the remaining links and to add secondary sources as citations to the Cast and characters section. (I found a couple of links that discussed the premise when I cut the citations in the See also section. Those links now serve as secondary source citations for the Premise.) Like you said, those two do not necessarily have to be done right now.

Last night (my time zone), I did cite the episodes as references for the non-contentious information in the Cast and characters section.

As for 5.2 above, the List of recurring characters and Article sections subsections above the GA Review was my trying to get an idea of what else could be included in the episode. I did not add the two characters I listed as their story arcs were shorter than the story arcs of the two recurring characters listed in the article. Since no one responded to my question about additional sections, I did not add anything. I did, however, copy-edited the article after I posted my question. I'm personally not sure what other issues you had seen on the talk page, so I can't address them.SciGal (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to the GA Nominator for such polite responsiveness to recommendations by GA Reviewer, above. — Cirt (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)