Talk:QI/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

There are at least four broken links.[1]

There are two unsatisfied requests for citation, one dating back to February 2009.

There are many external links in the body of the text. External links should only appear in the External links section.

The QI HQ section, which is supported entirely by 4 broken external links, appears to be an advertisement.

There are several statements like this "To date, 56 guest panellists have appeared on QI", which will date. When is "to date"? As of 2008? 2009?

I find it difficult to believe that the only unfavourable criticism of the show has been the way it's edited.

"Some of the material written in the forums is used in the TV series." Needs to be cited.

"Ironically, the only series to date without a Christmas special in its run has been series C." Why is that "ironic?

The Other media section is written as a list. It needs to be written in prose.

Stephen Fry is sometimes referred to as "Fry" and at other times as "Stephen". The article should be consistent.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to carry out all the changes you asked for. However, I have not been able to find much in the way of criticism of QI. Do you know of any such sources? ISD (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, but I'll have a look. I seem to remember reading somewhere some criticism of the way that Davies prepares for the show ... anyway, if that's the only issue outstanding then it won't affect this article's GA status. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through Newsbank, and although the majority of reviews are more or less positive, I also found this description of the show from The Independent, dated 12 September 2007: "QI is a teeth-clenching example of TV mistaking shallow cleverness for intelligence." Here is the url, although you may need a subscription. If you can't access it, but think it's worthwhile to add, I'll do that if you like. Personally I think it'll give a little balance to the criticism; it's just not credible that everybody loves the show. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can access the article fine and have now used the reference. Cheers for the find. ISD (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last thing; there's still a request for citation at the end of the second paragraph of Media/Books/UK. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a reference. ISD (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think we can close this now, so I'm going to update the article history to say that in my opinion this article still meets the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.