Talk:Off the Air (TV series)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Bentvfan54321 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll take this one. I hope to have some comments within 2-4 days or so. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]- The only dead links are the ones that are tagged as such. While it is not absolutely required for GA, I recommend trying to find archived copies of the urls or finding a different source.
- I'm uncomfortable with Son of the Bronx per WP:BLOGS. Pucci's posts on TV Media Insights are okay; however, Pucci's blog has recently come under fire for copyright violations. I recommend either finding another source for the claims or seeing if Pucci posted the same thing on TV Media Insights.
Lead
[edit]- "...the series remains relatively unknown" What exactly is unknown? Is it the status of the series? Its plot? The fact that it exists?
- It's status on the network, yeah. Added this in. 23W (stalk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Synopsis
[edit]- This looks good, but it seems awfully short as it is technically only one single sentence. Is there any way to expand that at all?
- I've struggled with this one. To me, it's pretty self-evident; in the Juxtapoz article, Hughes states that not much else can describe it: "But, in my own words, Off the Air is essentially a visual mixtape that really doesn't need any clear explanation, right?" 23W (stalk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to look at the Production and Broadcast and Reception sections soon. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking this! 23W (stalk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Second round
[edit]- Per Template:Infobox television#Attributes, which states "An image with the title logo of the show does not need a caption", I'd remove the caption from the infobox.
- "...after producing a video mixtape that would that would be projected..." remove the second "that would"
- The Dup detector shows that the second sentence of the lead is verbatim to text some of the text in ref 8. Rephrase that.
- It seems they've copied from this article, as evidenced by this lone ref link (#cite_note-Miami_New_Times-1), which is used normally in Wikipedia, but not for their website. 23W (stalk)
- Are some of the links in ref 12 the same? That appears to be the case, they are just different archived copies of the same article.
Those are the only outstanding issues I can find. The prose looks good, the article is adequately sourced, and the quotes are well-placed. Fix these minor issues, and I'll pass the article. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Bentvfan54321: Thanks for your review! How does it look now? 23W (stalk) 23:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @23W: Ok, I didn't see that the ref had copied text from a previous version of this article. Looks great, passing now, though if you want this to have a shot at FAC, those dead links will probably have to be resolved one way or another. If you're up to it, do you mind reviewing one of my nominations? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think those links are ever coming back, but I don't think the FA process forbids them (unless I'm mistaken). Thanks again, and will do! 23W (stalk) 23:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- @23W: Ok, I didn't see that the ref had copied text from a previous version of this article. Looks great, passing now, though if you want this to have a shot at FAC, those dead links will probably have to be resolved one way or another. If you're up to it, do you mind reviewing one of my nominations? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)