Talk:90210 season 3/Archive 1

Archive 1

Teddy/Liam/Navid coming out?

I looked at the source, but there isn't any cited referencne or quote inside the source, except a statement about coming out be central to a plot. Can we say for sure that it is one of these three cast members, and not new character Oscar? It just seems unlikely that the three listed characters would be gay (Teddy for his womanising nature is almost definately out, and Liam + Navid have both had sexual experiences with Naomi + Adrianna respectively, although either character could potentially make a change) noting that the writers want to take the issue seriously, I just think Oscar would be a more believable story and I don't really see the proof - can we confirm this at all/is the article given sufficient proof?

Yes Entertainment Weekly is proof enough. The CW posted that link on their official Twitter, if it wasn't one of those three, they would have said other options. Personally, I think it's Teddy. They made him a series regular this season, possibly for that exact story. Jayy008 (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

22 Episodes

Yea, in which source does it state their will be 22 episodes for this season. I can't seem to find one on the article. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A full season for The CW in the 2010-11 season is 22 episodes. When 90210 was renewed in February it was picked up for a "full season" so yeah, that's why. You won't find a source that says "22." Jayy008 (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's not official right? I mean if the season doesn't do good, then won't they get fewer episodes as it goes along? CloudKade11 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can do is speculate, it's got a full season of 22 episodes as it stands at this moment. We can't change it until a confirmed cancellation. But you're right, it will definitely get fewer episodes if it becomes to expensive to produce and it's cancelled. Jayy008 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Episode 2 rating

The source you use for episode 2 says ratings for Monday September 27, when episode 2 aired on September 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.37.151 (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

When TV by the Numbers don't post the ratings we use that website. It's really confusing but I'll try and explain. Since it aired on September 20, that site doesn't post the finals until the following week. So basically on September 27 you'll get this: Viewers – 1.83M to 1.97M. That translates to (Finals 20th - Overnights 27th). It's not ideal, so it's only used as a last resort. But I assure you, the numbers are correct. jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

I am personally trying to keep this page notable. So I have been adding extra information about ratings to the article, gradually. This includes repeat ratings for a little expansion. My edits are reverted by a single user. I am bringing it here to get people's opinions on some extra information added, is it needed? Or would you rather original ratings only? Jayy008 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. CloudKade11 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinion isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I have brought it up for discussion on Project Television. So far, the ratio for having ratings on this page is 2/3 Jayy008 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeat viewer data in the article? JMHO, but I say no. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is definitely valued. I'm going to remove it. Jayy008 (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

Should the cast poster be in the infobox? There's usually a poster for the show itself, or something like it in the infobox. Maybe a screen shot of the promo like in Smallville season 10? Then the cast poster can be moved to the "cast" section. Jayy008 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about the poster being moved to the cast section. Though, I think an actual poster promoting season 3 would suit the infobox best. CloudKade11 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen one anywhere? I've looked for a while and I can't find one, nor for other CW series this season (barring Nikita and Hellcats). PS. I don't think the current image can even be used, it's been edited into a cast photo, the original has lots of information on the bottom, I'm not sure we are allowed to edit pictures that belong to somebody else? If so, I'm going to restore the original image. Jayy008 (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was you that added it. I should have looked closer. Either way I'm going to restore the image to it's original form. Jayy008 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Guest star vs. recurring characters

This article has been undergoing an edit war regarding the placement of a particular character. I am copying over the conversation about it, which was conducted at a user talk page, since it is of general interest to contributors to this article and to help aid in finding consensus. I am not involved in this dispute or in television articles in general, beyond occasional copyright cleanup. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and, being in one episode makes him a guest star. A recurring role is 7+ episodes throughout the series, the source says episode 18, which is one episode, which is a guest star. Please don't reverting my edit, you have no grounds to do so. I am following what's the in the source and what the difference is between a recurring role and a guest role. Jayy008 (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a recurring characters' definition, it's not concrete. But as it stands, he's not slated to appear in any more episodes or "pop up every now and then." Until he does, he's a Guest Star. This is a quote from the guest star page: "In television series, a guest star is an actor who appears in one or a few episodes. In radio and television shows, a guest star is a guest of the show who is a celebrity." Please don't revert again. Jayy008 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? You removed my reasons for reversion from your page. Guest appearance clearly state that a one episode character is a guest star. You lied in your edit summary, the source does provide this information. It doesn't say the words "guest star" but I guess in all his time writing Michael Ausiello assumes people would understand the definition himself. I am not controlling the page, this isn't a matter of opinion, it's facts. Like television ratings, and I know how you don't like those to be correct unless they show the series in a more positive light. Jayy008 (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't lie about squat, and don't be calling me a liar when you don't even know me. That's extremely rude and disrespectful. Also, I haven't cared for the ratings section for months, so I have no idea why you brought this here. CloudKade11 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't care what's rude with you because you haven't shown the same consideration for me in the past. You're telling me to find a source saying he'll only be in episode 18. No source will ever say that. Things can change, but we can't speculate, we can only use facts. The source says "Richtson will appear in the 18th episode." One episode = guest star. Unless the source says he'll be in more, or another source says he'll be in more we can't change things. Jayy008 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid I can't discuss this any longer if your going to continue acting like a child. Sorry, but your attitude towards this is ridiculous. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but TV Line are very specific and is one of the most reliable scoop websites. When a character will recur, they say it. For example Lily's sister in Gossip Girl, they specified it was recurring. If he was appearing in more than one episode why would they say "He'll appear in episode 18." If they said: "He'll appear from episode 18." Then I have no grounds. Wikipedia is for facts, we can't make assumptions from sources. Jayy008 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edit. It does not say from. Please read! I'll explain read: Look at the screen, look at the letters, look at the word. Jayy008 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

lol you really think your immaturity here is going to help solve the problem? CloudKade11 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you should read and stop saying it says "he'll appear from the 18th episode" which it does not. Why won't you understand that? It doesn't matter now, anyway. We're both going to be blocked for 24 hours for breaking the 3 revert rule. So you think one episode makes you a recurring star? Jayy008 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but you need to find a reliable source that says 1 episode=guest star. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. CloudKade11 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Common sense, a recurring role is bigger than one episode. Everything falls into category's. Jayy008 (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

3O

This dispute concerns the placement of "Alan Ritchson as Tripp" and also the hidden note "<!--- Recurring characters are characters that have appeared in 7 or more episodes and pop up every now and again throughout the series see [[recurring]]. --->". Should Ritchson be placed under recurring character or should he be featured under "guest star"? Is a "7 or more episodes" standard reasonable in this context? See conversation above. --21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No speculation he'll return. Source says 18th episode of current season, nothing else. Anything else is speculation. Jayy008 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion of Bignole

Ignoring why there needs to be a chronicling of guest stars, the fact remains that the source says "In this season’s 18th episode", and that's all. It doesn't say "starting with", and it certainly doesn't indicate anywhere that he will be back. Even if it did, unless it says "recurring role", or that he would be back for more than say 3 episodes, then it wouldn't be a recurring role. It would simply be a special guest appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion of jmagicvamp

While sources aren't always reliable, there are no indications that Ritchson will guest star in more than one episode considering the wording of the article in question. Note that I said 'guest star'. A character is not considered recurring unless they appear in more than three episodes or every character that has appeared on the show would be considered recurring. Ritchson will be listed under guest stars unless a source surfaces that says he'll appear otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmagicvamp (talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved, but 3O only needs one vote or it's a waste of your time as the matter closes after the third vote. Jayy008 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I posted on your page for the discussion below. Sorry I wasn't more clear! Jayy008 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The infobox

The infobox's infromation is no longer relevant to the current state of cast members appearing on the show in the 'recurring characters' section. Should the old ones be replaced with ones that are currently appearing or should new ones just be added to coincide with the old ones? Jmagicvamp (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

::There's no cast information in the infobox, so I'm guessing you mean the list? My answer to that is, no. This is for "season 3" they've all been a part of season 3. Removing them say because they was only in the beginning of season 3, doesn't make sense. Or was you referring to something else? Jayy008 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just understood properly. To be honest, no. But, you can argue their shouldn't be a list of recurring characters, only regulars with recurring in prose format under "cast." The articles that do list recurring roles, usually have the most prominent first. So, yes, the second one Jayy008 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, edits will be made accordingly, thanks! Jmagicvamp (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't explain myself very well! Should we remove the lists altogether? Jayy008 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean the lists, I meant the template at the bottom, I suppose I didn't do a great job of explaining myself either. Jmagicvamp (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have absolutely no idea. I've never worked with those before - Sorry! Jayy008 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourced information

The source for the information regarding Loughlins and Eggold's departure from the series has information on why they're leaving. I added the information. "CloudKade11" keeps removing it saying "it's fine the way it is" just simply saying that they're leaving. To me, if a source tells you why, then why not report it? There's no reason not to. Jayy008 (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree that if the source says why, then we should include why as well. But right now I don't think that the information is needed at all. I think that it's too early to start adding info about season four because it hasn't been officially picked up yet.Ryanlively (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, as I asked here, on your talk-age, if season four information should be added. If the show isn't picked up, then the information holds no meaning anyway. Jayy008 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO, none of it really has any bearing on this page. All of it can be mentioned in a new section titled "Season 4" at List of 90210 episodes. As there is apparently information about the proposed season four, it's just fine to create a section titled "Season 4" or "Future" on the List of Episodes page and include the fact that these actors will not be in any future seasons because the storyline for the show is shifting toward college and negates the need for these characters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes no sense to not add that this will be Loughlin and Eggold's final season. Why on earth would anyone put "Season 3 was Loughlin and Eggold's final season" on the season 4 page instead of it being placed on the season 3 article? I thought we agreed that we would only put the reason why they left on the season 4 article, but not the entire source itself. Again, it makes no sense. And I just don't understand why we can't simply leave it as it is now. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Because we won't know if this will be their final season for sure until the end of it and secondly, we don't even know if the show will be renewed because if it isn't, it will be everyone's final season. The information should wait until it has at least been announced that the show has been renewed. Jmagicvamp (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Either way I think that we've reached a general consensus that the information should not be included on this particular page. Whenever the information is added, I think most of us agree that it should be added to some sort of season 4 page/section. Ryanlively (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Um no we haven't. And have you even read the source? It says that they both will not be returning next season. Meaning this IS their final season. I don't understand how saying season 3 is their last season on 90210 belongs on the fourth season article. Please do explain. The actors themselves have nothing to do with season 4, on the other hand the characters do. We can restate that the characters will not be returning on the fourth season article. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to necessarily be on a fourth season page. We can make a new section on the 90210 home page for season 4 stating that the actors/characters won't be returning to the show for that season with an explanation why because that would also include what season four will basically be about as well. I think that this is a good compromise. Ryanlively (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

CloudKade11, consensus is like a vote, when me, Ryan, Jmagicvap and Bignole all say the same thing. That's consensus, going against it in vandalism and will likely cause a block. We wouldn't put "season 3 was Eggold's and Loughlin's final season" on the page. We'd say "they won't be returning to season 4, because." But we have to wait either way until the show in renewed. As Jmagicvamp said, the show isn't even renewed yet. If it isn't it'll be everyone's final season. I am going to go ahead and reverted based on the consensus of 4/1. Jayy008 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

My internet was down for a few days so I couldn't reply. But now that I'm back I still don't understand why it cannot be added. Several replies later and still no explanation. CloudKade11 (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No one's replying so I'll be changing it back to how it was, considering no one wants to join in the discussion. CloudKade11 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion has already been had, there is nothing left to discuss. The information will be removed until it is relevant and as of right now, it's not.Jmagicvamp (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is done. Until a fourth season is officially announced. It can't go on the page as it'll be everyone's final season. It can be added back when the announcement is made along with the reason they're not coming back. Jayy008 (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cloudkade11, the discussion has been had. You are just choosing to ignore the conclusion that everyone else has come to just because you do not agree with it. One of the rules of wikipedia is to not engage in an editing war even if you believe you are right. You must also be open to collaborating with others in coming up with a solution/compromise. The decision has been made to not add it until a fourth season has been announced and that it will not go on the season 3 page anyway. It's not as if we are going to completely ignore the information, as it is valuable information. But you can not do what you want just to have your way. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you take it personally. It's not personal at all, it's just the decision that has been reached. Ryanlively (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with "changing it back" because noöne was replying but i don't agree with intentionally omitting it entirely. You might say i am more in agreement with Bignole though in how the information would best be presented. The source is one of the most reliable for early news about tv shows and ignoring it is just as bad as misrepresenting what it says. It does include a brief treatise on where the show is going for the fourth season (not that it was hard to guess college would come after high school). If the list of episodes were to have a one or two sentence summary for each season that preceded the episode list for that season then adding a Season 4 section there would be viable and in keeping with the overall presentation. A similar construct was done when information about the third season was available during the second season's broadcast. List of Lost episodes has a few paragraphs of summary before each season's episode list and that could be done for 90210 too. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not take Bignoles idea of "future" but have it on the 90210 main page instead of list of episodes? Jayy008 (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's good. I think "season 4" would be better though, but either one it good. I suggested that before as well. Ryanlively (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Either the episode list or the main article would work. The third season is not their last. They are not getting their contracts renewed for season 4. They could come back in season 5 or 6. Degrassi did a split-cast of uni & high school so 90210 could do that too and Eggold could resume his role. I'm not saying it will happen but it is possible and writing in such absolutes that go beyond that of the source is just asking for disagreement and to be proven wrong. My involvement in this collection of articles extends only to the episode lists so there might be some reason why i suggested that ;) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryan, I think season four would be better too. Maybe we should just wait for the announcement? Two weeks maximum. The network always does their early renewals in Jan/Early Feb. Yeah, I know you mean D&L. My main dispute was CloudKade "not letting me" add why they won't be back. But since the source says it I think it's always good to use it. Either way, as JMagicVamp said, season four isn't even announced. Jayy008 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Announced or not i don't think that changes the show going in a direction that doesn't include their characters. Jess was written out of Gilmore girls before his spin-off was picked up. Apparently it is expensive to film on location in Venice, LA. Jess came back here and there in Gilmore girls while the actor went on to other full time gigs in brilliant diary and stupid hero shows. "Michael Ausiello reported in January 2011 that the contracts of Lori Laughlin and Ryan Egglog would not be renewed for season 4 because the show is going in a direction that does not include their characters." For The CW these days the ratings are fairly consistent and better than life unexpected so the Monday shows are likely to be renewed. Though who knows - maybe they will realise that in a few categories their Friday shows vastly out-perform their Monday shows. Do not count on the early renewal announcement this year; i predict it will get a May renewal this year. i ♥ The WB New Tuesday delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess so, I'll go ahead and add the information the main 90210 page later. And yes - I find it weird their Friday shows do better, I hate to imagine how much better they'd do on a Monday. You don't think it'll get a renewal announcement until May? PS. I love WB Tuesday, what do you mean... HC and OTH? Jayy008 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayy008, this is where you discover you probably hate me but no, i most certainly do not mean Hell Cats and One Tree Hill. One Tree Hill ended at 7 seasons. I mean Gilmore girls and Smallville on The WB's New Tuesday circa 2002. This might get me shot in these parts but i am not a fan of Dawn Ostroff. Not even remotely close to liking her. I loved UPN and Enterprise. I paid a small fortune to switch service providers and get The WB and UPN in Canada. Dawn Ostroff moved Enterprise to Fridays as a last attempt to destroy the network. She succeeded. She has then run The CW into a salacious grave. I am still in the target W18-34 and i don't watch much on The CW. Translation: The only show to come on to the subsequently merged network that i have liked is 18 to Life which i can watch whenever given that i am in Canada and here the show goes on or in other words i am not here as a fan of the show but because i enjoyed the original series and because of formatting the episode lists and personal curiosity about the ratings. I threw a party when i found out Dawn Ostroff was quitting. Apparently she is quitting after she sets the 2011-12 schedule and she likes 90210 so i expect it to be back for a fourth season and have it be 'her last act as the one in charge of Th CW' to give herself another year of her favourite shows. I don't wish this show cancellation. I know the pain of a beloved show being cancelled. young americans and the Bedford Diaries. I watched every episode of Gilmore girls the first chance i could, some weeks watching it up to 6 times that night as i would bounce through every channel in Canada and the US that i got which carried the show and in the 1 hour gap i would make dinner. All 153 episodes in order from start to finish over 7 years. That takes a serious commitment and a lot of planning. It is not referenceable but the Toronto channel which carried Gilmore girls accidentally broadcast the 'unaired' pilot. When Dean was portrayed by a different guy in episode 2 i was confused. In the 'unaired' pilot it is actually called "The Gilmore Girls". You might call me a kindred spirit from a decade ago - the ghost of WB past. :) These days i still enjoy Smallville but am of the opinion that it should have ended a couple of years ago. I am a huge fan of Ian Somerholder (he was in young americans) though i have yet to really get into Vampire Diaries. I liked season 1 of life unexpected and i have nothing good to say about season 2 other than it is finished. The resurrection of 7th Heaven and then the death of Gilmore girls, Veronica Mars, and the second death of 7th Heaven was not a happy time and since then i have enjoyed very little that is on WPIX other than Legend of The Seeker. The only show that is still can't-miss on WPIX for me is the Fireplace at Christmas. I love that and they are the original.
On the up side, you won't ever find any obsessed-crazy-fan editing from me here :) And yes, i don't expect much or maybe any renewals in February this year for The CW. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talkpage :) Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Listing characters

I have made a big edit to the page and removed the section listing all the characters. This isn't based on personal opinion, there should only be a list of regulars if the lead isn't long enough to push the episode list down. This lead is long enough. Now the article is within guidelines. Jayy008 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

UK ratings

I've recently added the UK ratings to the page, but I thought I'd bring it here to see if anyone doesn't think they're notable? Jayy008 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think UK ratings should be fine. Are general UK ratings of the show included on the main page as well? Ryanlively (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so too, as a lot of bigger shows like CBS shows have Canadian ratings. I did include some notable ones. Like series high, series premiere and average. Jayy008 (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

Personally, I like what the image looks like now. However, are we allowed to cut the bottom off when we want too? I don't think the copyright license would allow that. Jayy008 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:90210 (season 3)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Disambiguations: two found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 29 October 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):

   The tense throughout changes almost randomly between past and present.

   Gillian Zinser, who plays surfer chick Ivy Sullivan, was promoted to series regular for the third season of the series "series" - "series"

   Series regular Rob Estes and special guest star Jennie Garth both announced they would not return to the series. "series" - "series"

   Failure to reach an agreement in contract negotiations have been cited as a factor in Estes' departure, but apparently leaves on good terms with the producers and the network - really this is very badly written.

   The producers said they were ultimately willing to let them go as they are "trying to establish a separate identity for the new show," and want to focus on the younger cast members and not those who starred in the original 90210 and Melrose Place Change of tense within sentence.

   The whole article is strewn with these elementary errors of basic grammar.

   The lead does not even attempt to summarise the article, please read and apply WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The ratings references are a wordpress blog.

   TV by numbers looks like a fanzine, try checking out article in better press sources.

   TVline looks like a rehash of press releases, again not a good source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Reception section is rather thin on critical comment.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No real analysis of the series is present

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears stable

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):

   One image used with suitable FUR

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article fails primarily on its extremely poor prose, which is going to take some time to address. Please get it copy-edited into good plain English. Please familiarise yourself with the good article criteria, and after copy-edit take it to WP:PR before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 30 October 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.