This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
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. BenLinus1214talk01:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
@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.