Jump to content

Talk:Good Doctor (advertisement)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

What is a good article?

[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) 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);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments

[edit]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Prose is clear and conveys the information. Some clarity would be welcomed in the Background section. It took a while to work out the dates.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

Good referencing. But having examined further, there are a couple of statements I've marked in the article that need attention.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

It is neutral

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

It is stable

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Image complies, though the quality is poor.
Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 23:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial inspection.

An impressive single edit appearance by User:GeeJo on Nov 9 this year. GeeJo is also the nominator. It is a short article - though the topic is not complex, so the depth of coverage may be appropriate. There are are range of cites in the appropriate places. The Production section appears to be missing. We jump from background straight to reception. The prose is workmanlike and conveys the information clearly.

  • Concerns arising.
  1. Image is poor quality.
  2. Greater clarity of the dense information in Background.
  3. Broad coverage. Adverts are fairly narrow focus, and this article has details of the main points. I'm just pondering if there could be greater coverage. After some consideration I'd like some explanation of why the advert won the awards - why is it a good advert? I'd like to see some outside opinion or commentary on the advert - especially to back up the claim that the advert was well received by the general public. There is not a clear explanation of why the advert is notable. It hinges on this statement in the lead: "The commercial was a popular, financial, and critical success, boosting sales during the period in which it ran, and receiving more awards than any other campaign in 2002." There is no evidence to support the "popular" success. Indeed - we have "boos from the gathered audience" on the announcement that ad won an award. Be helpful to have the reason for this reaction explored rather than merely stated. The connection between the ad and the financial success of the brand has not been fully explored. The source relied upon needs some interpretation, and a reasonable reader could conclude that the connection is not proved.
  4. A couple of statements need better sourcing - or adjusting.
  • Addressing concerns
  1. A better quality image could be found. But this in itself is not a fail.
  2. The Background section needs rewriting to make it clearer, and also to put this particular advert into the context of the campaign.
  3. Research and build up details on the popular success of the advert, the reason why people booed when the advert won an award, an explanation of why the advert won the awards (there would have been reasons given at the time by those giving out the awards), and a better explanation of the connection between the advert and the financial success of the brand.
  4. Provide sources where indicated - or adjust the statements.
  • Conclusion

The article is put on hold for an initial 7 days to allow the concerns to be addressed. User:GeeJo has been notified SilkTork *YES! 11:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There has been no progress on the issues. I'm not passing the article as I feel it doesn't meet 1 (a) because the prose is not clear in the Background section; it doesn't meet 2 because there are concerns about factually accuracy, and some claims are not appropriate verified; and it doesn't meet 3 (a) as it doesn't address all the main aspects of the topic. See above for suggestions on how to address these concerns. SilkTork *YES! 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Doctor_(advertisement)/GA1&oldid=1091476036"