Talk:Meatball It Up/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Review

I'm going to review the two episode articles together, they have similar content, subject matter and issues. Ktlynch (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning on starting any time soon? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does not have sufficient sources to be considered a good article, in fact I don't think it is even notable. The main source appears to be the credits of the programme which are not properly cited. Secondly, the writing is full of redundancy and is often unclear: it tells us that "an original song was recorded for the show", er, of course it was. "in a roadblock when they overdraw their debit cards when spending on Ty (Roshon Fegan) and Deuce (Adam Irigoyen). " This could be rewritten too. The synopsis is far too long for such a short television episode of this nature, it should be closer to 200 words.

I recommend that the article be merged into List of Shake It Up episodes. That list is in good shape and it seems more appropriate that this programme be treated there. Better have one FL than lots of poor articles. --Ktlynch (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination however, I don't know why you keep bringing up in this article and the other one that it is improperly cited. Have you ever heard of the cite episode template? The article is enough to withstand on its own, and I don't understand why you said "Better have one FL that (poor English here) lots of poor articles" if there only two articles already for a season full of episodes? Candyo32 20:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that template is for when an episode is used as a source in itself. When an episode is the subject of an article there must be sufficient, reliable third party sources. It's rather confusing when the link goes back to wikipedia. If they exist in this case they are not here, though I appreciate the difficulty of assembling sources (it's the task I find hardest on wikipedia). "Better have one FL than lots of poor articles" is a claim I stand by, there's a couple of useful bits of info in this article, but not enough to sustain it, better combine it all into a strong list article, with the main article that is more than sufficient coverage for a Disney television series. (A typographical error is not "poor English", that one is quite common. Editorial interjections generally use square parentheses.) I don't want to discourage you from working on TV articles, clearly work has gone into this one -- it's well laid out and looks clean -- but the sources simply don't exist. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)