GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Titodutta ( talk · contribs) 08:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am starting review. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 08:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I have completed reading the article. It seems to be well written article! See more comments below- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 09:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Basic problems | Comment |
---|---|
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability | No problem! |
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, {{ POV}} | No! |
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars | No! |
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. | No problem |
First look assessment: Ok! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea where I was and [I] had to go to the ER over night. They later discovered someone put PCP in my drink. They can't show it on the show because then that guy could sue for slander.
--
Tito Dutta
(Send me a message)
17:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In a recent edit an (anonymous) editor has changed the age of Christine (Moon) from 23 to 21, I am not very sure, verify this! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello editors! There is not any big problem in the article, I have not checked check copyvio and images still. There are only some minor issues! Can you correct the dead refs mentioned above? -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
Does anything else need to be done/is the review complete? It started well but has stalled the past month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Wondering about the lack of action on the nomination; it seems to have stalled again after some criteria were checked off on April 10 as having been satisfied. Are there problems in the other areas? BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
The article has just failed the "Stable" category, and I'm at a loss to figure out why. The criteria are: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I see no evidence of a content dispute going back a month, and no edit warring. Only the usual too-frequent bad IP edits and vandalism followed by reversions that tend to hit any article involving a popular show or performer, especially those with regular editors who want the article to remain clean. Tito Dutta, could you please explain the reasoning behind your grading of this section? It would be a shame for the article to be rejected due to this one failing grade. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes --
Tito Dutta
(Send me a message)
23:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) I have read the article multiple times, and yes, the prose is clear and concise. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes --
Tito Dutta
(Send me a message)
23:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC) There is not any problem with the WP:MOS in the article! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes, I have carefully checked this multiple times, it provides references to all sources of all necessary and important information. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Pass! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | |
2c. it contains no original research. | True, the article follows the guidelines! --
Tito Dutta
(Send me a message)
17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Reviewed it once again. There is not any original research! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 08:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC) | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Pass!--
Tito Dutta
✉
14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Since unfortunately it took long time to complete the review, today I have revised this criteria again and there is not any problem! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Pass -- Tito Dutta ✉ 02:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Follows Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- Tito Dutta ✉ 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Does not pass! --
Tito Dutta
✉
20:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC) After revising, I am changing to pass (see comments of Bluemoonset etc) above! You can request page protection once again if you anonymous edit vandalism problem continues! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 15:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC) | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | There are only two image, one in lead, Bad Girls Club logo and another is image of Tiara Hodge. Both are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. -- Tito Dutta ✉ 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC) | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There is only one image that of the logo in the infobox where it should belong.
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC) The second image, that you removed but I have restored, is also relevant to the topic, and has a suitable caption. If we're going to list names and careers, why not illustrate, if possible, by images? Unfortunately only one is freely available so far. 99of9 ( talk) 02:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC) There are only two images, those are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions. Can anyone add one or two more images in the article (eg. screenshot of a scene of the show etc). Please note I have not given "Pass" grade here, but I agree with it (so not going to change it), but, editors can think to add one or two more images in the article! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC) | |
7. Overall assessment. | The current version of the article is a good article. Congrats! -- Tito Dutta ✉ 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |