Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Superstore (season 6)/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: no consensus, defaulting to keep. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Merely a cursory glance at the page revealed examples of poor writing and misrepresenation of a web source (both present at time of original GA assessment), which I edited to fix. Reassessment required. U-Mos (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Further issues encountered: article skims over the notable fact that departing lead actor America Ferrera not only returned to film the episode held over from the previous season, during which she departs, but filmed a further episode as well (the season premiere); currently just reads she "wrap[ped] up the storyline". Further down in the production section, a paragraph begins with confusing reference to "multiple showrunners, writers, and lead actors" (from other shows?) discussing using COVID as a narrative theme (in reference to Superstore? Or more generally? Is this backed up by the source from the subsequent sentence, which is behind a paywall?) U-Mos (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on TV articles nor this show, but this doesn't seem like an actual problem? The article says "Ferrera would return to the series for the first two episodes of the sixth season to wrap up the storyline." That doesn't seem like "skimming over" it. I'm not sure how a reader would interpret that sentence to be about showrunners and writers from other shows - that would be very strange, there's no clarification required, the default subject from context is the showrunners of Superstore (which the source confirms). Not a "confusing reference." You can get past the paywall with the archive link. The edit you made looks fine, but also doesn't look like it's revealing some deep rot that indicates everything else is broken. Maybe there are problems here, I did not extensively check the article, but if there are, they don't appear to be the ones cited above. SnowFire (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Seeing no further comment or expansion on problems, seems fine to me. I reserve the right to change my stance if further problems are found, but they aren't "cursory glance" problems. SnowFire (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2022 (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.