Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dante's Cove/1

Dante's Cove

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result: GAR was unnecessary for this: as detailed below, it manifestly fails the criteria and could simply have been delisted. Geometry guy 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO fails 3)broad in its coverage. A)Links to the episodes article but Does not have a synopsis of episodes. Should be written in summary style. B)WP:UNDUE to "The Religion of Tresum" and "Saint". Tags had been added to the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Fails just about every GA criterion:

1. Lead does not adequately summarize the article (WP:LEAD). Saint and Religion of Tresum are entirely in-universe(WP:IN-U).

2. Heavy reliance on primary sources (violation of WP:V/WP:RS). No reviews at rotten tomatoes apparently resulted in this statement: “Formal reviews for Dante's Cove have been light and the series has failed to attract enough reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes to date to garner a rating”, which is, at best, synthesis (i.e. OR) and statements such as “Whether this establishes that the two series are indeed set in the same location remains unclear” also appear to be OR.

3. Broadness concerns: no explanation of typical plot, situations or storyline; episodes is not expanded upon; and statements such as “the cast and crew of the two shows socialized during the shoot” are unnecessary detail and not relevant to the topic (summary style violation).

6. Fair use tags for DVD images are entirely scant and inadequate. Additionally, minimal use is required per WP:FUC (i.e. at most one can be used to a depict a DVD cover). We can only use fair use if exclusion would be a detriment to understanding the article; this article is not about the DVD releases.

It’s concerning that the reviewer left minimal comments and didn’t even leave a signature. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's too late for it to mean anything, since no one had the courtesy to notify me as the GA noominator, I want to respond to some of this: It has no episode synopsis because one of its GA reviews was failed because it had episode synopses. You might want to get it a little more together so that us poor dumb folk in the middle know what actually is and isn't required. Stating the fact that there is no Rotten Tomatoes rating is not synthesis. Neither is stating the fact that the show has not been heavily reviewed. Stating the fact that it is unclear whether the two series are set in the same place is not OR.

This article has been bounced around in the GA process for months. I wonder if you have any notion just how discouraging it's been watching this article get ignored, failed for basically nothing, relisted, delisted, contradicted, on this near-endless cycle. Great Wikipedia experience. Thanks to everyone concerned. Otto4711 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]