Talk:Passions/GA1

GA Review

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

Beautifully written article, many citations, no maintenance tags. A very good article that I believe should be nominated. It has a very good summary from it's switch from NBC to Direct TV. Thanks. User:Sami50421 (User talk:Sami50421)

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've "quick-failed" the article. It needs a significant amount of work done on it yet. I notice that you say "no maintenance tags", but if you look closer there are in fact eleven (I think) {{Citation needed}} tags and an {{Expand}} tag. These have lead me to fail the article, based on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for. I will outline some of the other problems below, but it won't be comprehensive. I see that a peer review was conducted previously here. Although from 2008, at least some of the advice there still applies. I suggest fixing the maintenance problems that are tagged, and going through that peer review, and then I strongly recommend listing the article for another peer review before nominating for GA again.

As well as the {{citation needed}} tags, there are large amounts of the article that haven't been tagged but that are completely unreferenced.
Comments like "Another trademark of the serial...", "Likely due to Passions' school-aged target audience...." and "Again, the viewers and the producers were stunned..." come across as original research.
The critical reception section needs expansion (this is the section with that maintenance tag). It would also be good if there is some info on critical reception internationally, as other countries are mentioned with respect to distribution.
The lengthy cast lists would work better as separate articles.
File:HiddenPassions2001.jpg shouldn't really be included in this article. It's stretching fair use a bit since this article is about the show, not the book.
The references need more information. Where possible, they should include titles, authors, dates, access dates, publishers. Citation templates help to keep the formatting consistent.
There are two dead external links tagged. There may be more & all should be checked.
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should adequately summarise the rest of the article. At the moment, it doesn't.

These are just a few things I noticed, when these are addressed, I would definitely recommend a thourough WP:peer review and possibly a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors.--Beloved Freak 10:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]