Talk:Dumped

Dumped was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 6, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
October 16, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 15, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the participants of the Channel 4 programme Dumped were not told that they would be living on a landfill site for three weeks?
Current status: Delisted good article

Television: British High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A few comments

For any potential reviewer, this is not a GA review.

As said, this isn't a proper GA review, but I will give you a few comments for this article.

~~Italics need to be checked throughout the article. Newspapers and TV shows should all be in italics.~~ Done
~~You don't need to link Dumped in the "cite episode" template.~~

This is not from the article, but automatically from the cite episide template. I don't want to edit that to ruin other articles. Dalejenkins | 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The British flag in the infobox is uneeded.~~ Done
~~Anymore production information?~~ Done

That's all I can really see at the moment. Gran² 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dumped/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

We have a few issues with this article. Firstly the lead is not long enough and does not integrate all the sections present in the article. The lead should be an abbreviated version of the main article. Thus, you need to include content from the sections 'Pre-series publicity', 'Reaction' and 'Controversy'. Also, it is not clear in the article whether the show was successful or not. In thie viewing figures section, there are a lot of numbers given, but no real interpretation. What do those numbers mean? Will the show return? Please address these concern and get back to me. Zeus1234 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these requests have been altered :). Dalejenkins | 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HOORAY! We passed! :D Dalejenkins | 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dumped. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103053357/http://www.tvscoop.tv/2007/09/tv_review_dumpe.html to http://www.tvscoop.tv/2007/09/tv_review_dumpe.html

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) 21:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Dumped

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Hog Farm _Talk 23:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huge citation issues, including reliance on non-independent references, unreliable sources, and long plot. Fails GA criterion 1a and 2. Also originally nominated by a sockpuppeteer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, it's very far from a GA. Artem.G (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No sign of anyone attempting to fix the issues. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.