Talk:Double Dare (franchise)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look this one over and review it later. Sagecandor (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 13, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This article is of a good quality. My only complaint is with the one sentence long paragraph as the first paragraph of the intro, I suggest merging it, or expanding it. Writing quality is good, it is "clear and concise" per WP:WIAGA. Article has good structural organization and layout. Readability has good flow throughout for the reader between transitions.

2. Verifiable?: Article is very very very well cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is thorough, covering major aspects including Introduction, Gameplay, Main game, Physical challenges, Obstacle course, Personnel, Hosts and personalities, Production staff, Broadcast and production history, 1986–1989, 1990–2011, 2012–present, Reception and achievements, Ratings and impact, Critical reception, Other media, Portrayals and parodies, Merchandise and promotions. Production history is broad and expansive. You can clearly tell a significant amount of research and effort went into this. Well done !

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is presented in a neutral tone. Writing style is matter of fact wording. All assertions of fact backed up to appropriate sources. Appears to be NPOV article.

5. Stable? No ongoing edit wars. No major talk page conflicts.

6. Images?: Four free use images. These have good licensing. Two fair use images. Suggest removing and deleting one, and only having one fair use image. Suggestion for future improvement only.

Good job ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article! I appreciate the comments! — Chad1m ^Email Talk _Cont. 03:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)