Talk:Parents Television and Media Council/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- The lead needs to be longer. Three or four paragraphs, all about the same length as the current first paragraph, would be appropriate.
- There shouldn't be external links in the prose, they should either be turned into references or moved to the external links section. There is one in the Columns and Reports section, one in the Cable choice section.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- First, the reference links need some serious work. See this for a list of deadlinked or moved websites. The deadlinks are the most important to fix.
- I've added a few fact tags to places that need references.
- Please remove the extra bolding that appears in two of the PTC references.
- All web references needs to have publishers and access dates at the very least; authors should be included if available. Links should be made through the titles, rather than being left as bare links/numbers.
- I am somewhat concerned at the prevalence of web references, used for an organization that has been around for 14 years and has been mentioned or profiled in hundreds of books - see here. Why are these books not used?
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I have quite a few concerns about this article's references, and there are also a few issues with basic MOS compliance. I am putting this article on hold for now, in order for these problems to be addressed. I have not completed a full review of the prose, NPOV and completeness of this article, due to the issues outlined above. I will complete the rest of the review when I see work progressing on the referencing and MOS compliance of this article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
You have some good points right there, so boldly do as you please. I can help as well. I've searched for the PTC on google books before and I know that there are plenty of printed coverage in addition to web coverage. Do you differentiate newspapers/magazines from the general Internet though? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Deadlinks:
Done --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew! First, newspapers/magazines tend to be better than general web content, and books tend to be even better still. Second, I probably won't be doing too much bold editing on this article, since I'm the GA reviewer. If I make too many large changes to the article, it makes it easy for me to lose the ability to see the small things that the article needs to make it to GA status. I'm quite willing to do copyediting and minor MOS work, but I'm going to leave most of the large stuff to you. Reviews are generally on hold for a week, but if you feel that you need slightly longer than that I can extend the hold. If you feel that it's going to take you a lot longer than that to make the changes, it may be best to withdraw the nomination and renominate the article when the changes are finished. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to have to fail this GAN, due to a lack of response by the editors. Although the deadlinks have been fixed, none of the other work has been completed. Once this has been completed, and a thorough prose review has been done, I look forward to seeing the article at GAN again. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew! First, newspapers/magazines tend to be better than general web content, and books tend to be even better still. Second, I probably won't be doing too much bold editing on this article, since I'm the GA reviewer. If I make too many large changes to the article, it makes it easy for me to lose the ability to see the small things that the article needs to make it to GA status. I'm quite willing to do copyediting and minor MOS work, but I'm going to leave most of the large stuff to you. Reviews are generally on hold for a week, but if you feel that you need slightly longer than that I can extend the hold. If you feel that it's going to take you a lot longer than that to make the changes, it may be best to withdraw the nomination and renominate the article when the changes are finished. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
