Talk:Britain's Got Talent series 7/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 15:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, I have chosen to fail this article as I feel it doesn't meet the criteria. Although the article in parts does give an accurate account of the latest series of BGT, it isn't as comprehensive as I would imagine, especially having watched it firsthand. I am concerned about the validity of certain statements and prose could be tightened in some areas. My issues and suggestions are as followed:

I would advise you to have a look at other reality TV show articles, which are of GA or FA standard, should you wish to renominate this. Compare the style and structure, look at its reviewing process and take some ideas on board. The X Factor (Australia series 3) is a good example of how this article may be structured.
What's included in the lead is fine, but it is still somewhat light. Remember this acts as a summary for the entire article. The most important bits of information should be included in the first paragraph -- that means who judged the competition, what channel it was shown and who won the final. Why is there no mention of controversies? How did the show do for ratings?
I can't see a reference to support "Open auditions were held at The Oval in London on 25 February 2013." Plenty of citation needed tags in the last section too.
There are several instances which I have found sentences left uncited. "Each semi-final episode aired from 7:30–9:00pm and the results half-an-hour later at 9.30pm after a 30-minute episode of Coronation Street.", is one. Saturday newspapers tend to have a supplement with TV listings for that particular week; in theory you could cite that if you have archive access. Moreover, there probably is a press release about Corrie moving times.
Judges tend to give reasons for why they save one act over the other in bottom two. Yet there is no discussion of this in the semi-finalist section, just tables.
Is half an hour hyphenated?
While I am glad to see there is a ratings table with a weekly rank column, it could be supplemented with prose. What shows were it up against? It was ranked third on week seven, what shows did it lose out to? How does the share figures and ratings compare to last year?
"Cowell responded to Forsyth, ~~stating that~~: "someone, Mr Grumpy, said we shouldn't have children your age on the show", after..."
"Jessie J joined the debate, declaring: "I cannot agree with kids..."' → replace declaring with and said
Try and avoid using a noun followed by -ing – "stormed the stage, launching eggs in the direction of Cowell". See this for some neat exercises on how to avoid this construction.
All sources need a retrieval date and a publish date, where applicable. From looking at the reference list, some of these are missing.

I would advise you (should you wish to have another crack at GAN) to focus on making the article as comphrensive as it can be. The tables are fine but they need prose to summarise the key bits -- this is an encyclopedia after all. Go over the sources and make sure the material in the article is covered by the sources. Have the article run by someone here preferably before sending it over here again. Feel free to have this article reassessed if you think the review is wrong. Bonne chance! -Lemonade51 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]