Talk:Dumped

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Hog Farm in topic GA Reassessment
Former good articleDumped was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 15, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the participants of the Channel 4 programme Dumped were not told that they would be living on a landfill site for three weeks?
Current status: Delisted good article

A few comments

edit

For any potential reviewer, this is not a GA review.

As said, this isn't a proper GA review, but I will give you a few comments for this article.

  • Italics need to be checked throughout the article. Newspapers and TV shows should all be in italics.   Done
  • You don't need to link Dumped in the "cite episode" template.
This is not from the article, but automatically from the cite episide template. I don't want to edit that to ruin other articles. Dalejenkins | 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • The British flag in the infobox is uneeded.  Done
  • Anymore production information?  Done

That's all I can really see at the moment. Gran2 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dumped/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

We have a few issues with this article. Firstly the lead is not long enough and does not integrate all the sections present in the article. The lead should be an abbreviated version of the main article. Thus, you need to include content from the sections 'Pre-series publicity', 'Reaction' and 'Controversy'. Also, it is not clear in the article whether the show was successful or not. In thie viewing figures section, there are a lot of numbers given, but no real interpretation. What do those numbers mean? Will the show return? Please address these concern and get back to me. Zeus1234 (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

All of these requests have been altered :). Dalejenkins | 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
HOORAY! We passed! :D Dalejenkins | 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dumped. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 23:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Huge citation issues, including reliance on non-independent references, unreliable sources, and long plot. Fails GA criterion 1a and 2. Also originally nominated by a sockpuppeteer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Delist - No sign of anyone attempting to fix the issues. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2023 (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.