| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it can become a good article
Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
- Comments by Jappalang
The contents seem too skimpy to me to qualify for broad. The issue could be that the sources are too little to give a reasonable view of the subject. This could get worse; what makes tvbythenumbers.com a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? There should be no all-capital titles according to the manual of style, and slashes as in "4.1 rating/11% share" should not be used. There should also be a comma after the year when using US style dates (month day, year). The writing seems a bit drab but is reasonably clear (not much confusion to the reader). Personally, if it was me, I would not bring this to GAN unless I get more substantial content from reliable sources. Jappalang (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)