![]() | Weekend at Mort's was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 1, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editThe 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 |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Weekend at Mort's/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is a quickfail. The article is insufficiently referenced, contains quotes that are too long, and lacks cited and diverse material about the production of the episode.
I will leave some specific comments, but I think the best place to start for you is to read through, say, the episodes of Better Call Saul (season 6) and get a feel for what makes a TV episode Good Article tick, particularly in citation density for the Production and Reception sections.
- IMDb is not a reliable source for that material. I was hoping to see a citation to an article discussing the titling or connecting it to Weekend at Bernie's, not that.
- Is the reference to Scott Davidson, which has no sensible targets at that disambiguation page, supposed to read Scott Jacobson?
- Reception material/sourcing is good, but you use too many and too lengthy quotes. The BCS articles have lots of reception material but collate it in their own words with shorter quotes where appropriate.
If you want advice on writing pages in this field, WP:TV and its editors probably have plenty to offer, and I'm also willing to provide advice. Unfortunately, this article as it stands is far from meeting the Good Article criteria.