Talk:Live PD/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I spent some time reviewing this article, as I've seen Live PD before and find it an interesting show. Unfortunately, I can't see this article as anywhere close to the GA criteria at this time. I'll add some comments below, so that this article can be developed in the correct direction.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose-wise, there are a number of minor errors, such as missing italics and some work to be done with condensing paragraphs that are only one or two sentences into a broader main idea. These could probably be easily fixed now. However, there's quite a bit that does not comply with the MOS. The lead does not cover the main ideas of the article and could use some serious expansion; see MOS:LEAD for an idea of what should go into a lead section. I would recommend this be done last, however, as work on other criteria will affect the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The references in the article need some minor cleanup work to make them all uniform, but are otherwise appearing to be reliable, and I don't believe there is any copyright violation issue. There are several statements, however, that have no citation at all, which can be seen as possible WP:OR and need to be cited for this to be considered as a GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There's a lot missing here that would be expected of an article on a TV show. Where is information on the show's development? How has it been critically received? These questions answer why the subject is notable. As it stands, the technology and associated programs could be blended into a new development section, which would also reduce the impression that this article goes into unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No real points of view to cover here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears relatively stable

6. 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):

   Lot of missing information on the non-free fair use rationale on the image. This needs to be filled in properly, or the image could be removed for copyright reasons if the WP:NFCC can't be established. I would say, it shouldn't have a problem meeting the NFCC, but it needs to be spelled out on the image's page. Also, as the article is expanded to make it broad in coverage, can another image be added? Maybe of a show creator, or something else relevant to the series?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   At this time, there's a lot of expansion that needs to be done just to satisfy criteria 3a; while GA is not a comprehensiveness review, basic establishment of development and reception is necessary to meet the broadness criterion. After that, there will be a lot still needing trimmed, and at this time I don't believe putting the article on hold for a week will give it time to be completed. All new sections of the article need to be researched and constructed for this article to be deep enough to satisfy the GA criteria, and then its sections need to get in line with the manual of style. If and when you believe you have this together, feel free to message me and I'd be glad to have another look at the article.

Red Phoenix ^talk 05:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.