Talk:A Piñata Named Desire
 | A Piñata Named Desire 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
I recommend fixing reference #6 before the GA review -- the ref needs to use the {{cite web}} template. 89119 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:A Piñata Named Desire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Queenieacoustic (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I will add suggestions soon.
Comments edit
The entire first paragraph of the Production section just has the episode as its source. I'm pretty sure this isn't considered reliable. Also, the paragraph reads like a list of staff members. Remember, this is not IMDB. Just listing staff members like "animation producers" and "production managers" isn't at all important as to how the episode came to fruition, etc. The episode's writer(s) and director(s) is enough. The paragraph also goes into unnecessary detail (we don't need to know what the staff has worked on before), so I can't pass it for being focused either.
The link used as source for the second paragraph doesn't specifically mention that Lucy Lawless gueststarred in the episode. Although I'm certain you can find other sources for it, as it is, it is considered Original Research. And what else, the section is also worded awkwardly: This would be the first episode that both writers would write, why the "woulds"? And you shouldn't refer to the episode as "This": either write "A Piñata Named Desire" or "It", like: "A Piñata Named Desire" was the first episode that both writers wrote etc.
And that's just one section! But to be fair, it was the worst looking one, and the Reception section, while it has some awkward sentences (He praised the main plot, find it hilarious) (...saying the show is "is back in fine form tonight,), is probably the best written of the bunch. But still, I'm sorry to say, this article has a long way to go until it can become a GA. I suggest you ask for a peer review so that it can be improved upon. Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)