Article(
|
visual edit |
history)·Article talk(
|
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.
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. --
MalleusFatuorum19:09, 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. --
MalleusFatuorum19:42, 4 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. --
MalleusFatuorum14:56, 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.
Article(
|
visual edit |
history)·Article talk(
|
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.
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. --
MalleusFatuorum19:09, 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. --
MalleusFatuorum19:42, 4 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. --
MalleusFatuorum14:56, 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.