Talk:Paid Programming (TV pilot)/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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: non found.

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Poorly written, e.g. Paid Programming (also known as Paid Programming: Icelandic Ultra Blue or Icelandic Ultra Blue) is television pilot for Cartoon Network's late night programing block, Adult Swim. ; that it would do poorly ratings wise; Paid Programing was not picked up as a full series, as revealed when Benjamin referred to it as an "abject failure".; Similar to the broadcast history of The Rising Son, another program on Adult Swim,; Adult Swim revived negative feedback ; With out any credits, ;

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   ref #1[2] does not support the statement: was aired in the United States on November 3, 2009 at 4:30 am (ET), unannounced and unadvertised

   ref #6[3], which is a dead link, is not a WP:RS. IMDB ratings count for nothing.

   ref 7#[4], messages on fan forums are not RS.

   ELs - Paid Programming at the Internet Movie Database needs to be removed from the ELs as it is already used as a source, per WP:EL

   The article relies on WP:Primary sources. Other WP:Secondary sources need to be found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted above there is nothing about reception cited to reliable secondary sources. There may be nothing out there, but until there is, this fails the broadness criteria.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   appears stable enough.

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):

   The image used has insufficient information in its rationale. "To show" is insufficient; Replacable: yes, indicates that another free image is avaialable, if so then use that.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is poorly written, poorly referenced and fails to meet the broadness required of good articles. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (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.