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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 22:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be able to take care of this one shortly. Canadian Paul 22:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here is my review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Just a few points:

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article (and hence there should be no citations). Currently, the syndication names are not present in the body.
  • Fair enough. The alternative name "The Industry" was in the last sentence of §Development and writing, and the second paragraph of §Broadcast and home video. I've added the French name there as well, with the source, and removed the citation from the lead (as it is unlikely to be challenged).
  • I removed the rest of the citations from the lead; they don't seem likely to be challenged.
• Per the criteria, the references/inline citations should all follow the same style, but there are many different styles used in this article and several do not conform to the overall date order of the article. Since it is a Canadian article, you can use whichever format you prefer, but it should be consistent. Also, reference #44 is a dead link with no backup archive, which should be fixed.
  • Thanks for pointing out the broken ref. The URL had been truncated (probably a copy-paste error).
  • I thought that consistency of citation style meant using either <ref> tags or parenthetic citations, but not a mix, and that consistency of date formats only applied to featured article reviews. Nonetheless, I've gone ahead and put all the dates in dmy format (I know there are scripts to do this but the one I've seen removes non-breaking spaces which is a pain). If there are other inconsistencies in the references, it might be some offline sources which had been with the article before I started working on it. I assumed in good faith that they were valid but did not alter them, as I had not myself seen the source material to verify. Would you prefer that I put them into citation templates so the rest of the formatting is consistent?
  • I gained access to the ProQuest database last week and was able to locate and verify most of the older sources, and fill out the citation templates (unfortunately, ProQuest is a subscription service so no direct URLs to include). I think the remaining differences in style/formatting are chiefly from the differences with ((cite news)), ((cite web)), ((cite magazine)), ((cite book)), etc.
• In terms of prose flow, I found many parts of the article difficult to read due to the frequency of very short paragraphs (not counting the characters section, where it makes sense, although these should be consistent as to whether or not they end with periods). Per MOS:BODY and WP:PARAGRAPHS, I think some of these could be combined to make the prose easier to read/follow.
  • For the cast list, a copy editor removed the terminal punctuation from incomplete sentences. These fragments do begin with a capital letter. Both of these points are recommended by MOS:BULLETLIST. If you want, I can rephrase to make the fragments complete sentences, but this will necessarily lengthen the entries.
  • I've rearranged a bit of information in §Production. I got rid of the L3 header for §Ratings and combined those two one-sentence paragraphs into a short paragraph. Other than that, I'm not sure much can be naturally combined.
• Under "Development and Writing": "They wanted to satirize office politics," Who is "they?" Just Lunz and Mercer (who are mentioned in the previous sentence) or Donovan as well? Especially with the paragraph break, it is unclear.
  • Wrote out the three last names.
• Per WP:CITE, direct quotations require a direct citation at the end of the sentence. At (almost) the end of the third paragraph, the quote "suck-up kick-down philosophy" should have a direct cite.
  • Added citation (same as at the end of the paragraph).
• This isn't a GA criteria, more of a suggestion, but it's pretty easy to miss the "reunion" section at the bottom of the page. Maybe it could be included in some form in the "Broadcast and home video" section (maybe renaming it "legacy" or something)? Just a thought, as something that struck me.
  • I'd be tempted to put it in a L2 heading except that it's so short.

There a few more little things (for example, I feel the lead could be fleshed out a bit, but technically it meets the criteria), but in terms of the GA criteria, I believe that this is it. I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 03:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Thanks for being thorough. I added to the lead that it was filmed in Halifax and a little more about the awards. Are there any major points you feel aren't covered? – Reidgreg (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply - I got unexpectedly busy - but everything looks good now! I merged one sentence in the lead that I felt makes sense, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if you hated that change and unmerged it. Just helps the flow a tiny bit in my opinion. As for the period thing in the cast list, I did not know that, so it is fine as is. Still learning things after all these years... Anyways, I am going to go ahead and pass this article for GA. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: I'm kind of the MOS guy at GOCE but I still miss an embarrassing amount of stuff in my own writing. There's way too much for any one volunteer editor to know everything, which is why discussing things in reviews like this is so valuable – thanks again! Reidgreg (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]