Talk:The Cube (British game show)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: JohnGormleyJG (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of references in sections “Format, Prize Money, Aides, Games, Celebrity Specials, Defeated Contestants, Awards, Filming Locations, & Top Prize Winners” That's 9 sections without any references.
Sections such as the opening paragraph, filming & Merchandise (preferably should be called Merchandising) could do with a bit more references as 2 for each of those is a bit too little.
Although referenced well the reception section could be expanded more by getting more critics opinions off more topics such as the revamp.
Too much of the article is completely trivia mainly the games section. That would only work if it obtained its own article, but for the main show article that is too trivial and does not really serve as an encyclopedic point of view.

Good Infobox

Wording There really is no need to say “The Cube is a triple BAFTA Award–winning British game show” as the first sentence “The Cube is a British game show” is fine. You are not trying to sell or advertise the show. Besides that statement is not even referenced.
No need to say the sizes of the cube. That might be able to go into a production or show background section but not the opening paragraph.

No Reference Like the majority of this article this section does not have a single reference. It is all self-research.

Well referenced at the start The start contains good sources but that is only the start unfortunately. Minor grammatical errors such as “he or she” could be change to “they”. Other than that good section.

Well Presented The table was designed correctly no code errors which makes it easy to read.
Only 1 Reference 1 reference in the whole 9 season grid is quite poor. Try to get sources on air dates and number of episodes.

Not Significant Enough Does not seem significant enough to carry its own section. The only key part is the top prize £250,000, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph. The rest is unnecessary.

Too Trivia Theses can get a mention in the format section but giving them a whole section is too trivial and it is unreferenced.

Too Trivia The whole games section is way too trivial See WP:IINFO. This may work on its own article, but its too much for the main one.
Unreferenced The section does not have 1 reference in it.

Unreferenced I know I have been saying it a lot but it applies here too. There is no reference in this section either.
Games details There is no need for the game details in the Text Santa part for the same reason I have explained in the game section of the review.

Well Presented No Reference

Lack of Reference Preferably call the section Merchandising For app just mention when and on what no need to mention contents

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A.Yes the majority of the article is well written. Few minor grammar errors but nothing major

B. No the layout includes many trivial sections. The opening paragraph needs a bit of work on.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. No very few references. In Wikipedia: FNNR

B. There are few references but the few ones are to reliable sources.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic

B. No it goes into irrelevant trivia driving away from the main facts.
Is it neutral?
Gives main information
Is it stable?
No, many significant recent changes
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged

B. Images are relevant to the topic
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Unfortunately this has to fail mainly because such a significant amount of trivial info and unsourced content. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 13:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]