Talk:Paid Programming (TV pilot)

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Paid Programming (TV pilot) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 13, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed

Animation: American Start‑class Bottom‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Bottom This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group. This article lacks sufficient references and adequate inline citations. Once the references are added, please remove the |unref= parameter from this template.

Television Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA toolbox
AI detector Authorship Citation bot Copyvio detector External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paid Programming (TV pilot)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: non found.

Linkrot: one found and tagged.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   Poorly written, e.g. Paid Programming (also known as Paid Programming: Icelandic Ultra Blue or Icelandic Ultra Blue) is television pilot for Cartoon Network's late night programing block, Adult Swim. ; that it would do poorly ratings wise; Paid Programing was not picked up as a full series, as revealed when Benjamin referred to it as an "abject failure".; Similar to the broadcast history of The Rising Son, another program on Adult Swim,; Adult Swim revived negative feedback ; With out any credits, ;

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

   ref #1[2] does not support the statement: was aired in the United States on November 3, 2009 at 4:30 am (ET), unannounced and unadvertised

   ref #6[3], which is a dead link, is not a WP:RS. IMDB ratings count for nothing.

   ref 7#[4], messages on fan forums are not RS.

   ELs - Paid Programming at the Internet Movie Database needs to be removed from the ELs as it is already used as a source, per WP:EL

   The article relies on WP:Primary sources. Other WP:Secondary sources need to be found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   As noted above there is nothing about reception cited to reliable secondary sources. There may be nothing out there, but until there is, this fails the broadness criteria.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

   appears stable enough.

6. 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):  

   The image used has insufficient information in its rationale. "To show" is insufficient; Replacable: yes, indicates that another free image is avaialable, if so then use that.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   The article is poorly written, poorly referenced and fails to meet the broadness required of good articles. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.