Talk:AMI-tv/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review--sorry you've had to wait so long for one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"at least 50% of programming must by described by companies unaffiliated with AMI" -- what does "described" mean here? Do you mean the voice descriptions for the audio track? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta take a break, will finish later. Looks good so far! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the concerns. I don't think there will be much ratings data because note, this is a very niche channel. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See clarity question above~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~The French programming should probably be mentioned in the lead, since it gets a subsection in the article~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The article uses press releases a little more than I like to see, but that seems to be mostly what's available here, and the claims aren't very controversial.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~Is it possible to discuss what ratings/viewership the channel generally receieves?~~ Probably not a main aspect here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA