Jump to content

Talk:Cold Feet series 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCold Feet series 5 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review (On Hold for now)

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

I've reviewed the article and noticed a few things that don't allow the article to pass the criteria (linked to above). They are mostly minor and with a few fixes I believe the article can be promoted. There are also a few minor things that I think would improve the article if it were to be promoted to a featured article so I'll list these with an "Optional" tag.

  1. Copyediting the plot summaries - I fixed one sentence earlier that mistakenly said "she tries to get take more", and although I don't see any more sentences like that, the article should be copyedited again just in case.
  2. Awkward wording and disjointed sentences - The plot summaries (mostly the first one) seem disjointed. I understand that there are three different stories being told (I think, I've never seen the show but have read the main article, so if I'm wrong please inform me), but is there some way that the stories connect that could be explained. If not, there should be a better transition between the sentences, for example: "Rachel reveals her obsessive coddling of the child is because she once dropped him on the floor. Audrey's arthritis keeps her, and consequently Pete and Jo, awake." seems like two facts are just being strung together. I don't think it would be good to add "Meanwhile" to every transition, but once or twice it would help make the plot clearer.
I've separated the completely separate plots so hopefully it is more understandable, and I've made some language changes to help it flow better. It's tricky trying to summarise a 95-minute episode in less than 100 words so if it needs another round of copyediting just say so!
  1. Inline references - Per WP:Cite, the inline references should come after punctuation marks. It's alright to have two references at the end of one sentence if needed, or after a comma. I saw a couple of references that didn't come after punctuations, but the rest seem to be fine.
 Done
  1. Date links - Per WP:MOSLINKS all dates should be linked, even if they are repeat links (like the air dates of the episodes that are linked in the table and not linked down below it).
 Done
  1. Overlinking - Conversely, per WP:MOSLINKS again, overlinking should be avoided. In the table, only the first instance that the writer and director appear should be linked. So, for example, Mike Bullen should only be linked to in the "Episode 1" row and not in the others.
 Done
  1. OPTIONAL Lead fix - Per WP:Lead, it may be appropriate to put references in the lead section. The ratings and awards mentioned in the second paragraph could use the references (these should just be the same references used later in the article, but linked to using the <ref name> format.
 Not done I've checked all of the statements in the lead are referenced in the correct places in the rest of the article though.
  1. OPTIONAL Acronyms - The first time an abbreviation is used in an article the acronym or abbreviation should be spelled out to identify it, for example: "British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)". I don't believe that "ITV" or "BBC" should be spelled out though, so that might be the only one.
 Done Spelled out BBFC.

Like I said though, the optional ones don't need to be fixed for it to pass, but once the others are fixed just leave a note here or on my talk page and I'll look again and most likely pass it. Also, though it says that an article should only be "On Hold" for seven days, if someone is working on it and the time expires I'll be very lenient on the time. As this is my first time reviewing an article for GA-status, if someone disagrees with my assessments please leave a note here or on my talk page and I can look it over again or even ask for a second opinion. Phydend 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. Brad 11:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? {{{stable}}}
6. Images?: Pass

Good job, I've looked over it and passed it. The plots are definitely more understandable and everything else is fixed. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Phydend 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cold Feet (series 5). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cold Feet (series 5). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_Feet_series_5&oldid=1216218522"