Talk:Modern Family/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 17, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
COMMENT: A LOT OF WORK IS NECESSARY, as noted, below. I was tempted to fail this, as quite unsure if Seven Days is enough time to get this up to GA quality. However, here's the deal: worst case scenario, you can't get to it all in time, it fails, and you can renominate and cite this past review and note point-by-point on the article talk page in advance how you attempted to address all suggestions from this past review (and also from the prior GA Review Reassessment). Good luck !!!
MISSING = this was identified at the last GA Reassessment, and yet still missing. A "plot synopsis" or better yet a "premise" sect, compare with a good one at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. If this was already brought up at the last GA Reassessment, why was it not already addressed, between that time, and now?
One-sentence-long-paragraph as 3rd paragraph in lede ???
Lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD. It also has severe lack of balance in size of each paragraph. Per WP:LEAD, article lede intro sect needs to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Recommend four (4) full paragraphs, of at least four to five sentences each.
Lede intro sect also is disorganized, and presents material not in same chronological order as sects in article, itself. Lede intro sect should roughly follow same chronological flow as article body text.
Early on, it was named as a key holder for the 62nd Primetime Emmy Awards. What does this mean in the lede ???
Analysis and commentary - remove the large blockquote in this sect. This shows the reader that the writer was a poor writer who was unable to summarize the info, themselves, and just chose the lazy way out by quoting the entire relevant portion.
Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Modern+Family&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - result - "Violation Possible 64.5% confidence" - please trim down all quotations such that the three (3) problem sources at Copyvio Detector result all get below 30 percent confidence on my next revisit and analysis.
Why is Syndication sect part of Reception parent sect?
Ratings should be its own two level sect, above Reception.
Analysis and commentary - this sect could be titled instead as "Themes" and be its own two level sect, above Reception.

2. Verifiable?:

Per WP:LEADCITE, no need for citations in the lede -- IFF the info is cited again in article body text.
References sect has a few errors noted.
Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "tvhit" defined multiple times with different content
Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "seasontwoviewer" defined multiple times with different content
Checklinks shows at least sixty-four hyperlinks issues at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Modern_Family
Please archive those cites with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT fields of archiveurl and archivedate. Consider archiving all hyperlinks in article in this manner, as well, but at least those sixty-four (64) problem links. These are any and all links at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Modern_Family that do not show a "0" or "200" as a result for link health status.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is lacking a "plot synopsis" or "premise" sect, compare with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Already brought up at prior GA Reassessment - not sure why this wasn't addressed in the interim time period between then, and now.

4. Neutral point of view?:

Concerns here. Article comes across as a bit promotional in nature. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to all the awards in the lede intro sect. This could be summarized a bit more, instead.
Awards and accolades' - suggest just rename as "Accolades".
Criticism - entire sect not mentioned in lede, at all.
Criticism - why a separate sect for this? This should be integrated into one sect, Critical reception sect.
It looks like Critical reception sect is almost exclusively positive commentary = POV concern.
Remove the 2 blockquote boxes in Critical reception sect. They come across as POV and promotional.
Awards and accolades - this sect is a bit large and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, especially as there is an entire separate list page for it. Please use WP:SUMMARY STYLE, and trim that sect size down a bit.

5. Stable? I went back over one month and the article is stable -- aside from edits by new users and by IPs that seem to be agreed by established editors to not be appropriate. Perhaps try for semi-protection request at WP:RFPP ?

6. Images?:

File:Modern Family Promo Season 1.jpg = this one can be removed as it is a dup to the other fair use one, and to the free-use one of the cast.
File:Modern-Familytigtlecard.jpg = this one can also be removed as you already have a free-use-licensed picture of the cast, you can just move that free-use licensed picture, higher up in the article body text next to more pertinent info like the Litigation sect perhaps.

NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this extensive review. I'll try my best to address these issues within seven days. -- Chamith (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not GA at this time

Unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time. I'm seeing a nice bit of progress, but several items, above, remain unaddressed.

My sincere hope is that the above recommendations will be addressed over some time in the future -- to further help improve the quality of this article.

I truly thank all editors involved for their work on this so far.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:

Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality -- but more specifically -- improvement of overall article structure, organization, and flow for the reader.
While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful indeed. Thank you for taking time to review the article. -- Chamith (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]