Talk:The Secret Life of the American Teenager/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: upstateNYer 01:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. I'll have a full review back shortly. Looking quickly over the article it looks good generally, though there are a few minor issues that will need to be cleared up. I will be making edits as I see fit while I read through. If you have issue with any, please feel free to bring them up here. upstateNYer 01:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • Lead:
     • The first sentence of the lead tells you immediately who created the show. This information is useful to about 1.34% of readers. A rewrite of the first paragraph would be useful such that within the first two or three sentences, the reader gets an idea of what the show is about. The extra information should be included after that (this just equates to a rearrangement of information, basically—no big deal).
     • The comparison to Gossip Girl should be explained: "...beating that night's episode of Gossip Girl...". Add a parenthetical if you're trying to say that it is a major competitor, i.e. "...beating that night's episode of Gossip Girl (one of the show's major competitors in the time slot)..."; competitor is probably not the right word. I trust you'll come up with it.
   • Series Overview:
     • I presume that "John" is the baby's name, but that's not made explicit in either paragraph; can you make this known?
   • Cast and characters:
     • This sentence needs to be rewritten so the meaning is clearer and it's no longer a run-on: "Though she believes it is her boyfriend's, due to her husband's vasectomy, it is revealed that he lied about having the surgery."
     • Generally speaking, I would suggest switching the character name and actor name placement. Most readers will probably be looking for character names first, so if the are labeled first, it will make it easier for the reader.
     • Double check ages. Let's choose a consistent one: go with "seventeen-year-old" as opposed to "17-year-old" or "17 year-old". There was some inconsistency which I think I fixed, but I might have missed one. All fixed
   • Production:
     • "Secret Life is number one with the network's key demographic in its debut time slot versus cable television shows." ← Please rewrite that so its meaning is clearer; I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it.
     • The phrase "more than a decade ago" needs to be updated to "in 19XX". Ten years from now that phrase would be invalid (or at least not entirely accurate).
     • Unsure what the phrase "script on spec" means. Can you define it in the prose?
     • Please wikilink Starcom. I'm not sure which of the dambig pages it should go to. Linked to company that owns them. (They don't have a wiki article yet)
     • I would add "NCOPTUP" after the group's full name, but it doesn't seem to match up correctly. Can you resolve this?
     • A few paragraphs (especially quotes) need inline sources.
   • General:
     • Decide how you want to refer to the seasons. You have all of the following (using season 1 as an example): "Season One", "Season 1", "season one", and "season 1". Pick one and stay consistent.
     • After this review, regardless of whether it passes or fails, I would suggest requesting a review by the Guild of Copyeditors. They're usually pretty quick to respond, and another pair of eyes is always helpful.
     • Fix the Dablinks noted in that link. Done.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref #24: this goes to a pay site (login required). Do you have access? ). No link is needed if it's just going to bring me to a login site, but article information is a necessity. Ref was redundant, and since I don't have access just removed it.
   • Also, please format like the rest of your references ({{cite web}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Very good in this respect.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Seems to be okay.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Given the fact that the article is about a TV show (a copyrighted work) the lack of imagery is understandable.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice work overall. Let's just get those issues noted above fixed, and we can go from there. upstateNYer 03:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm busy at the moment, but with the nominator indef blocked, I think I'll try and clean up these issues. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well that stinks. Pretty good article too. Heh, this would happen on my first GA review. Anyway, when you have time to respond, give me poke on my talk page. upstateNYer 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed a few minor things, still lots to do. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, time has gone on for a while, so I'm going to fail this. However, this will probably be an easy article to pass if someone wants to put some time into it in the near future. upstateNYer 14:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of grammatical errors in this article and quite a few of the other Secret Life articles that really need to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningbend (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Season 6??

So in the beginning of the article it states that the shows upcoming sixth season will be it's last. Is this a typo?? I was under the impression that the show was canceled after season 5.1rkhachatryan (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)