Talk:Pilot (The Playboy Club)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Treading carefully here, this show seems to attract some unstable editors. :/

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Some of the characters listed in the plot need to be introduced better. The first paragraph is perfectly fine, but in the second, we have casual reference to "Carol-Lynne" and "Billy Rosen". Given that the later Cast section is pretty unnecessary (it adds nothing but character fluff - if there's behind-the-scenes information about the roles to add, do it. Here is an example of how that would work), the character descriptions there can be used in the plot instead.

The quote box seems overly long. I'd suggest phrasing it as follows: "The musical numbers provide some pleasure, but the one reason to watch the show is Ms. Benanti, who has the skill to make the soft-boiled tough-guy dialogue work and who often seems to be the only adult on screen. She's paired with Eddie Cibrian as a former mob lawyer [...] His interestingly thuggish face is a good fit for the period, but he's awfully lightweight for a guy who has to dispose of a body in the first 10 minutes of the pilot".
Done
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Seems in order.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Ditch the cast list, for sure. I'm also a bit concerned about the dearth of production specifics in comparison to the very beefy reception material, but ultimately this seems unavoidable so it's not a problem for the sake of this review.
I added some info about how they were casted, and what they said about the characters. There are some info about production on the main page of the series in regards to the pilot episode (such as the music). I was also thinking about adding the info about the conception. Doesn't really make any sense to have its origins mentioned in the lead and not elsewhere in the article. —DAP388 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be a good idea. Doesn't have to be much if there isn't much to add. GRAPPLE X
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutrality is fine.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stability is fine.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are used appropriately. Three are commons, the one non-free image is suitably tagged with a solid fair use rationale.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Going to hold this one until the listed issues are seen to, but it's not too far away from a pass. GRAPPLE X 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changes are enough to pass this article. Well done again! GRAPPLE X 15:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]