Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Beautifully written article, many citations, no maintenance tags. A very good article that I believe should be nominated. It has a very good summary from it's switch from NBC to Direct TV. Thanks. User:Sami50421 ( User talk:Sami50421)
Reviewer: Beloved Freak 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've "quick-failed" the article. It needs a significant amount of work done on it yet. I notice that you say "no maintenance tags", but if you look closer there are in fact eleven (I think) {{ Citation needed}} tags and an {{ Expand}} tag. These have lead me to fail the article, based on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for. I will outline some of the other problems below, but it won't be comprehensive. I see that a peer review was conducted previously here. Although from 2008, at least some of the advice there still applies. I suggest fixing the maintenance problems that are tagged, and going through that peer review, and then I strongly recommend listing the article for another peer review before nominating for GA again.
These are just a few things I noticed, when these are addressed, I would definitely recommend a thourough WP:peer review and possibly a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors.-- Beloved Freak 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Beautifully written article, many citations, no maintenance tags. A very good article that I believe should be nominated. It has a very good summary from it's switch from NBC to Direct TV. Thanks. User:Sami50421 ( User talk:Sami50421)
Reviewer: Beloved Freak 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've "quick-failed" the article. It needs a significant amount of work done on it yet. I notice that you say "no maintenance tags", but if you look closer there are in fact eleven (I think) {{ Citation needed}} tags and an {{ Expand}} tag. These have lead me to fail the article, based on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for. I will outline some of the other problems below, but it won't be comprehensive. I see that a peer review was conducted previously here. Although from 2008, at least some of the advice there still applies. I suggest fixing the maintenance problems that are tagged, and going through that peer review, and then I strongly recommend listing the article for another peer review before nominating for GA again.
These are just a few things I noticed, when these are addressed, I would definitely recommend a thourough WP:peer review and possibly a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors.-- Beloved Freak 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)